MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W218447816

Psi Chi Alumni: A National Survey of Psychology Honor Society Graduates.

2006· article· en· W218447816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph R. Ferrari, Drew C. Appleby

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorPsychologyGraduate studentsHigher educationMedical educationPedagogyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although thousands of psychology majors are admitted and graduate as members of Psi Chi, the national honor society for psychology, no assessment of the members who graduate and pursue graduate studies and/or employment has been performed. A randomly selected, national sample (n = 580, 85% women) from the graduating classes of 2000 and 2003 indicated that most respondents (80%) were enrolled in master-level, instead of doctoral-level, graduate programs at public urban institutions. Most respondents (58%) also reported they currently were employed full-time. These educational and employment post-baccalaureate experiences occurred for members from recent and earlier graduating classes. Implications from these data for advising and mentoring psychology majors are discussed. ********** College students often join national honor societies, which are designed to bring together the best and brightest students based on their academic achievements. Collegiate honor societies aim to reward previous accomplishments and promote future success among their student members (Abrahamowicz, 1988). Membership in such scholastic societies is perceived as a source of status because members meet admission standards that are not achieved by all students. Further, in associating with other highly successful and involved students, honor society members have an outlet for forming networking relationships that may be useful for further education or in the work world (Heitner & Denmark, 2000; Huss, Randall, Patry, Davis, & Hansen, 2002). McCannon (1986) found that involvement in student organizations also allows their members opportunities to develop organizational and leadership skills, close relationships with faculty who engage in scholarly research, and opportunities to become acquainted with guest speakers who are successful in their respective fields. Student membership in honor societies can also enrich the institutional climate of the school that sponsors them. For instance, Huss et al. (2002) reported that membership improves undergraduate education, increases interactions with faculty, boosts student retention and satisfaction, and strengthens student perceptions of their institution. A review of honor society literature reveals that previous research has focused on personality characteristics of members (Baker, Beer, & Beer, 1991; Baron, 2000) or perceptions of membership (Magrath & Sleigh, 2003). Magrath and Sleigh (2003) surveyed 64 honor society members and non-members from a moderate size, suburban university and found that both samples perceived membership positively and that members were satisfied with their membership experiences. Moriarty and Ferrari (2003) reported that among 108 honor society alumni members from a single small, urban liberal arts college, most went on to pursue higher education (64.5%) and then worked either in business (34.9%) or educational settings (28.2%). In addition, most respondents (76%) reported that honor society membership had a positive impact on their lives. The oldest and most widely known scholastic honor society in the United States is Psi Chi, the honor society for psychology founded in 1929 (Hogan & Sexton, 1993). Miller (2004) reported that as of June 2003, there were 1,013 chapters of Psi Chi (including at least one Canadian chapter) with 445,361 members inducted since the organization's conception. Psi Chi encourages its members to maintain excellence in scholarship in all fields, particularly psychology, and to advance the science of psychology. In the year 2002-2003 alone, over 22,000 new members were inducted into Psi Chi. Broderick, Fellows, and Fallahi (2004) reported that when 20 current members from two Psi Chi chapters were surveyed anonymously, respondents (mostly Caucasian women majoring in psychology who reported a cumulative G.P.A. of 3.45) felt that membership was personally beneficial to their academic success, even though most participants (75%) were not actively engaged in any psychology-related employment. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege student journalSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207