MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060116442 · doi:10.1080/13607860903167820

Factorial structure and psychometric properties of the reminiscence functions scale

2010· article· en· W2060116442 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAging & Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsLangara CollegeUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReminiscencePsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisCronbach's alphaExploratory factor analysisFactorialPsychometricsFactorial analysisReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyStructural equation modelingStatisticsCognitive psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study reports on the psychometric properties and the factorial structure of the Reminiscence Functions Scale (RFS), a 43-item self-report instrument used to assess the frequencies of reminiscence for distinct functions. METHOD: The factorial validity (exploratory factor analysis, n = 453; confirmatory factor analysis, n = 456), the invariance of factorial structure across gender (males = 228; females = 240), and psychometric properties were examined. RESULTS: They support an eight-factor structure similar to the original one, yet question the value of a few of the items. Cronbach's alphas for the various subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. Test-retest reliability ranged from r = 0.48-0.63. CONCLUSION: The RFS is confirmed as a psychometrically sound instrument for use in research on the functions of reminiscence with samples of older adults.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it