Measuring Children’s Perceptions of Parental Involvement in Conjoint Behavioral Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practitioners of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation rely on several sources of information to assist in planning and evaluation of consultation efforts. Parental involvement in the home is an important aspect in Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, yet there are few questionnaires available to practitioners to assess this important construct, particularly those that target children’s self-report. This study examined the factor structure and reliability of a new questionnaire to measure children’s perceptions of their parental involvement in learning. The Parental Support for Learning Scale: Child Form (PSLS) was administered to a sample of 231 children (aged 10–13 years). Exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor structure representing parental involvement behaviors and emotional tone: (a) Parental Management of the Learning Environment, (b) Parental Participation With Homework, (c) Controlling Parental Involvement, and (d) Supportive Parental Involvement. Analysis showed satisfactory reliability coefficients. The four factors are discussed in relation to the relevant literature and Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, and future directions for further validation of the PSLS are discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".