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 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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 score0.040
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
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