MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289147159 · doi:10.1177/0734282915622853

Validation of the Self-Regulation Scale in Chinese Children

2015· article· en· W2289147159 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Zhou, Amanda Bullock, Junsheng Liu, Rui Fu, Robert J. Coplan, Charissa S. L. Cheah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Office for Philosophy and Social SciencesShanghai Municipal Education CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPsychologyLonelinessMeasurement invarianceInternal consistencyConvergent validityClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyPsychometricsMetric (unit)Social psychologyStructural equation modelingStatisticsConfirmatory factor analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Self-Regulation Scale (C-SRS) were examined in a sample of 1,458 third- to eighth-grade students in China. Children completed self-reports of self-regulation, loneliness, depression, and self-esteem, and teachers rated children’s school adjustment. Results showed a stable three-factor model that demonstrated a reasonable fit to the C-SRS items, and the scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity. Results of measurement invariance tests indicated metric and scalar invariance across gender and grade. Findings from this study suggest that the C-SRS can be used with Chinese primary and junior high school students.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoeducational AssessmentSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207