The Mediating Effects of Ego-Resilience on Achievement-Oriented Parenting Style, School Adjustment and Academic Achievement as Perceived by Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationships among children's perspectives on achievement-oriented parenting style, ego-resilience, school adjustment, and academic achievement.In order to analyze the associations, the study conducted a secondary analysis of the data found in the Korean Children and Youth Panel Survey (KCYPS) 2010-2011, which was a non-randomized controlled study designed with a longitudinal follow-up.We analyzed 1,212 students who were in the fourth and fifth grade at elementary school with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).The results were as follows.First, higher achievement-oriented parenting style was associated with higher ego-resilience that contributed to higher academic achievement and higher school adjustment.Second, higher achievement-oriented parenting style was directly related to lower academic achievement and lower school adjustment.The findings support that children's ego-resilience is an important factor to improve school adjustment and academic achievement.In addition, the achievement-oriented parenting style is not helpful for their children's school outcomes (such as academic achievement and adjustment) even though parenting style improved their children's ego-resilience.Ego-resilience that is developed by achievement-oriented parenting style is likely to enhance children's school adjustment and academic achievement.The study presents policy and practice implications, limitations and areas for further research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".