MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2211828861 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n7p260

Correlation between Students’ Self-Efficacy and Teachers’ Educational Leadership Style in Iranian Midwifery Students

2015· article· en· W2211828861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zohreh Sohrabi, Masoomeh Kheirkhah, Elahe Sadegi Sahebzad, Seyedehsahel Rasoulighasemlouei, Siamak Khavandi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsTransformational leadershipPsychologySelf-efficacyBachelorLeadership styleFeelingCorrelationSocial psychologyMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy is believe in and feeling of ability to complete work. One of these factors is educational teachers ' role. This study aimed to determine relationship between teachers' leadership style and students' self-efficacy in midwifery students. METHOD: This Study is a cross sectional correlation study. Sampling was conducted in midwifery students in Bachelor Science degree in 2013. Data collection tools were multi leadership questionnaire and self-efficacy clinical performance. After explaining the goals of study, 97 students completed the questionnaire. Scoring the questionnaire was based on a Liker's scale (0-5).Data were analyzed by SPSS 16. Correlation coefficient test was adopted to investigate the relationship and p value was considered 0.05. RESULT: Mean of self-efficacy scores were 116.12 (24.66.). In 53.3% of the cases, self-efficacy was good, in 42.2% moderate and in 4.3%, it was bad. The majority of the students (88.9%) reported that their teachers had an idealized style in leadership. About 94.6% of the students with good self- efficacy believed that their teachers' leadership style was transformational style. There was a significant correlation between self- efficacy and leadership style (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that transformational style is appropriate for midwifery teachers.

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)0.006
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207