MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125106564 · doi:10.1177/0829573509331614

Investigating the Comparability of a Self-Report Measure of Childhood Bullying Across Countries

2009· article· en· W2125106564 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chiaki Konishi, Shelley Hymel, Bruno D. Zumbo, Zhen Li, Mitsuru Taki, Phillip T. Slee, Debra Pepler, Hee-og Sim, Wendy Craig, Susan M. Swearer, Keumjoo Kwak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityConstruct (python library)PsychologyConstruct validityConfirmatory factor analysisMeasurement invarianceEquivalence (formal languages)Measure (data warehouse)Developmental psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPsychometricsSocial psychologyClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responding to international concerns regarding childhood bullying and a need to identify a common bullying measure, this study examines the comparability of children's self-reports of bullying across five countries. The Pacific-Rim Bullying Measure, a self-report measure of students' experiences with six different types of bullying behaviour and victimization, was administered to 1,398 Grade 5 students from Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, and United States. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory modeling were used to evaluate construct equivalence on the measure across different countries. Preliminary results revealed some construct differences across countries, that is, the bullying measure is measuring one construct, but that the construct is manifested differently in the different countries.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207