MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151319119 · doi:10.2466/pms.104.4.1169-1182

An Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, 11th Version in a Sample of Chinese Adolescents

2007· article· en· W2151319119 on OpenAlexaff
Shuqiao Yao, Yang Hui-qin, Xiongzhao Zhu, Randy P. Auerbach, John R. Z. Abela, Ryan W. Pulleyblank, Xi Tong

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarratt Impulsiveness ScaleCronbach's alphaPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyImpulsivityPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined the psychometric properties of the Chinese translation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11th version in a sample of adolescents from Hunan province, mainland China. During an initial assessment, 396 secondary school students (Grades 10-12) completed the scale and self-report measures assessing problem behaviors and alcohol use. The scale was re-administered 1 mo. later. Analysis gave Cronbach alpha of .80 and test-retest reliability of .70. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a model containing six first-order factors and two second-order factors best fit the data. Girls reported higher Total scores than boys as well as higher scores on the motor impulsiveness, self-control, and cognitive instability sub-scales. Scores were associated in the predicted direction with a wide variety of self-reported problem behaviors including alcohol use, gambling, and academic misconduct. Current findings indicate that the translated scale is a promising tool with some further development for assessing impulsiveness with Chinese adolescents.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations137
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207