Stability and change in adolescent spirituality/religiosity: A person-centered approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been a substantial increase over the past decade in studies that have examined the psychosocial correlates of spirituality/religiosity in adolescence, very little is known about spirituality/religiosity as a domain of development in its own right. To address this limitation, the authors identified configurations of multiple dimensions of spirituality/religiosity across 2 time points with an empirical classification procedure (cluster analysis) and assessed development in these configurations at the sample and individual level. Participants included 756 predominately Canadian-born adolescents (53% female, 47% male) from southern Ontario, Canada, who completed a survey in Grade 11 (M age = 16.41 years) and Grade 12 (M age = 17.36 years). Measures included religious activity involvement, enjoyment of religious activities, the Spiritual Transcendence Index, wondering about spiritual issues, frequency of prayer, and frequency of meditation. Sample-level development (structural stability and change) was assessed by examining whether the structural configurations of the clusters were consistent over time. Individual-level development was assessed by examining intraindividual stability and change in cluster membership over time. Results revealed that a five cluster-solution was optimal at both grades. Clusters were identified as aspiritual/irreligious, disconnected wonderers, high institutional and personal, primarily personal, and meditators. With the exception of the high institutional and personal cluster, the cluster structures were stable over time. There also was significant intraindividual stability in all clusters over time; however, a significant proportion of individuals classified as high institutional and personal in Grade 11 moved into the primarily personal cluster in Grade 12.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".