Investigating the effect of in-service training on advisors' effectiveness through psychological empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficiency is one of the fundamental concepts in any organization including ministry of education of Iran.Teachers and counselors are the main assets of this organization and education plays a key role in achieving the organization's goals.In-service training is a technique for improving the quality and effectiveness of the advisors.This paper presents a study on the effect of in-service training on advisors' effectiveness through psychological empowerment.The study uses a questionnaire developed by Spreitzer (1995) [Spreitzer, G. M. (1995).Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.Academy of management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.]to examine the effects of five variables; namely self-efficacy, self-determination, impact, meaningfulness and trust.Using structural equation modeling, the study has determined that all five psychological empowerment components had positive and meaningful effects on in-service training.In addition, in-service training maintained positive and meaningful impacts on all components on psychological empowerment.Moreover, in-service training positively influenced on psychological empowerment.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".