MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061845286 · doi:10.1037/a0018507

Description and psychometric evaluation of the Youth Counseling Impact Scale.

2010· article· en· W2061845286 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Riemer, Marcia A. Kearns

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthClinical psychologyScale (ratio)PsychometricsFeelingConfirmatory factor analysisTest validityTest (biology)Item response theoryStructural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article describes and evaluates the Youth Counseling Impact Scale (YCIS; L. Bickman et al., 2007), a recently developed therapeutic process measure that assesses youths' perceptions of the impact individual mental health counseling sessions have on their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This measure is intended for frequent use in the mental health treatment of youths aged 11-18. It provides a general Impact score as well as two subscale scores: Insight and Change. Five hundred youths receiving mental health services participated in this investigation. Classical test theory, item response theory, confirmatory factor nalysis, and analyses of the relationship of the YCIS with other scales were used to evaluate the research questions. The results suggest that, overall, the YCIS is a well-functioning scale with good psychometric properties. The proposed model for 1 primary general factor of impact and 2 secondary factors (Insight and Change) fit the data well. Specific weaknesses of the scale are discussed, and possible improvements are suggested.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207