Psychometric properties of three measures of protective factors for depression and suicidal behaviour among adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of French versions of the Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS), the Reasons for Living Inventory for Adolescents (RFL-A), and the Spirituality Scale (SS); to examine the construct validity of these psychometric instruments; and to determine their convergent validity with French versions of the Life Events Questionnaire for Adolescents (LEQ-A), the Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition (BDI-II), and the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) among French-Canadian adolescents. METHODS: Participants were 429 adolescents from high schools (n = 283) and the Mood Disorder Clinic (n = 146) in Montreal. The instruments were translated into French following the back-translation method. The internal consistency was assessed through Cronbach alpha coefficients. Exploratory analyses were conducted to document the content of their dimensions. Convergent validity was examined by correlating the ACS, the RFL-A, and the SS with the French versions of the LEQ-A, the BDI-II, and the BHS. RESULTS: The findings confirm that the ACS, RFL-A, and SS are psychometric instruments well suited to assess protective factors for depression and suicidal behaviour among French-speaking adolescents in community and clinical settings. However, results must be interpreted with some circumspection as 2 SS subscales obtained reliability coefficients in the moderate range only and the instructions for the RFL-A were reframed in response to ethical considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Our results add to those already available on the original English versions of the ACS, RFL-A, and SS and advance the knowledge of the psychometric properties of protective measures.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".