MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102260068 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.27

Developmental Differences in Children's Use of Rating Scales

2002· article· en· W2102260068 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine T. Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsPsychologyRating scaleFeelingLikert scaleDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of child age and number of response choices on children's tendency to respond at the extremes of Likert-type scales rating emotional states. METHODS: Sixty children (5-6 years, 7-9 years, 10-12 years) were randomly assigned to use either three or five response choices in providing ratings in three different task conditions. Tasks were designed to have correct choices at the midpoints of the rating scales. Children also completed a self-report feelings questionnaire. RESULTS: Results showed that younger children responded in an extreme manner when rating emotion-based, but not physical, tasks. Children's extreme scores did not vary as a function of number of response choices used. More extreme scores on the three tasks were related to more extreme scores on the feelings questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that young children may respond in an extreme manner when rating emotional states. Researchers and clinicians should take this into account when interpreting children's self-reporting ratings.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations356
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207