Parents’ self‐efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender, children’s reader self‐perceptions, reading achievement and gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relationships among parents’ self‐efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender, children’s reader self‐perceptions, reading achievement and gender. This study consisted of 66 students, aged eight and nine, and 92 parents involved in a family literacy project for approximately one year. The study was conducted in a rural area of Eastern Canada. There were three instruments used in this study: a Questionnaire for Parents, a Reader Self‐Perception Scale (RSPS) (Henk & Melnick, 1995), and a standardised reading test (Test of Early Reading Ability‐2 – TERA‐2) (Reid, Hresko & Hammill, 1989). The Pearson‐Product‐Moment method and t‐tests were used to determine relationships in the data and to identify significant differences in scores on the instruments. Significant positive and negative relationships were found between mothers’ and fathers’ self‐efficacy beliefs and children’s reader self‐perceptions. Children’s self‐perceptions as readers significantly related to their reading achievement. Mothers had stronger beliefs than did fathers in their ability to help improve boys’ reading achievement. Significant differences favouring females were found in children’s reader self‐perceptions and their reading achievement. The findings of this study provide a basis for understanding factors related to young children’s reading achievement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".