MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080801063 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.378

Reliability and Validity of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale in a French-Canadian Sample.

2003· article· en· W2080801063 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lyse Turgeon, Elise Chartrand

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNormativeAnxietyClinical psychologyConcurrent validityTest validityReliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsInternal consistencyScale (ratio)Sample (material)Developmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of a French version of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS). A sample of 2,666 school-age French-Canadian children completed the questionnaire. With regard to factor structure, the 5-factor model found in U.S. normative samples was confirmed. The internal consistency of the 5 scales and of the 2 global scales was good to excellent. Test-retest reliabilities after a 6-month period were also similar to those of the original version. Finally, the concurrent validity, assessed by a correlation with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, was also found to be good. Results of the present study show that the French version of the RCMAS is a good instrument to assess anxiety in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations101
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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