MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162787708 · doi:10.4102/sajip.v33i2.371

Psychological empowerment in the South African military: The generalisability of Menon's Scale

2007· article· en· W2162787708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjay T. Menon, Barry Vos

Bibliographic record

VenueSA Journal of Industrial Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Internal consistencyPopulationEmpowermentSocial psychologyClinical psychologyDemographyPsychometricsSociologyPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the factorial validity and internal consistency of the Menon Scale for Psychological Empowerment, developed in the United States and Canada and tested in Australia and Greece, in the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). The 2231 participants in the study represented the gender and racial distribution of the military population. The South African data initially yielded a two-factor structure. A forced three-factor structure rendered acceptable alpha coefficients, but did not resemble the theoretically expected factors. The forced factor analyses were repeated for Africans, Asians and Coloureds, and Whites separately. Results for the first two groups kept the original structure, whereas the factor structure for the white participants resembled the theoretically hypothesised factors. The forced three-factor structures rendered very high internal consistencies for the total scale, but one factor for both the African and the Asian and Coloured groups showed unsatisfactory reliability, suggesting a single underlying empowerment factor. This was confirmed by high correlations between subscales. Menon’s model seemingly fits the South African data slightly better for the white participants than for their non-white counterparts. The scale thus needs to be revised for the different cultural groups.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSA Journal of Industrial PsychologySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207