The Validity and Reliability of Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy Module Development for University Support Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces the Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy Module for university support staff in lessening their irrational beliefs and job stress which more emphasize on cognitive aspect beside emotion and behavioural aspects. The Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT) which introduced by Albert Ellis (1994) was employed as a guideline in developing the module. The process of module’s development content was compiled based on the four sub modules, namely Self-acceptance, Feelings, Beliefs and Disputation which adapted from previous REBT practitioners and researchers. After the module developed, the analysis of validity and reliability were tested. The content validity of the module was evaluated by five experts and the result indicated that the value of validity coefficient is high which is .91. Meanwhile, the reliability analysis was tested by employing a questionnaire based on the steps of module’s activity. The result showed that the value of reliability coefficient is also high which is .98. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that the REBT Module has a high validity and reliability which can be utilized by support staff at university.
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 | 0.022 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".