MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295164337 · doi:10.14288/1.0106882

A critical evaluation of the Bell adjustment inventory : Student form

2012· article· en· W2295164337 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elvet Glyn Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Treatments and Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the course of this study, an attempt was made to establish evidence concerning the reliability and validity of the four adjustment subsections included within the Student Form of the Adjustment Inventory. The four subsections are: Home Adjustment; Health Adjustment; Social Adjustment; and Emotional Adjustment. The total sample used in this study consisted of 103 grade twelve boys and 104 grade twelve girls from the Kitsilano Junior-Senior High School, Vancouver, British Columbia. Within the limitations of the study, the salient findings may be stated as follows: 1. Certain of the subsections yielded distributions for the samples used that diverged significantly from normality resulting from an accumulation of scores at the well-adjusted end of the scale. 2. Significant sex differences within the scores of the boys and girls were obtained in the case of the Emotional section and the Social section. 3. Statistical significance between mean scores was obtained for the sample of grade twelve boys used in this study and the original standardization sample of high school boys (selected from all grades) in the case of the Health section and the Social section. Comparing the original standardisation sample of girls with the present grade twelve sample, significant differences were found between their group scores for the Home, Health, and Social sections. These results suggest that a revision of norms is possibly required in certain cases. 4. From an item analysis, it was noted that for each section certain items fell below statistical requirements for acceptance. In the case of the Health section, for the boys, 17 of the 35 items fell below requirements, indicating weak interval consistency. The Social section proved to have the fewest number of poor items, four in the case of the boys and throe for the girls. 5. The obtained reliability coefficients for the Home and Social sections were found to be above the .80 level in all cases, ranging from .86 to .91. For the Health and Emotional sections the reliability coefficients in certain cases fell below .80, the Health section producing a low of .701 as calculated for the boys on the basis of the Richardson-Kuder formula. 6. Although in most cases the coefficients of intercorrelations were low, certain of the subsections correlated sufficiently high enough to suggest the possibility that such subsections were measuring related factors. 7. On the basis of ratings arrived at by means of a prolonged interview, the validating of the Home Adjustment section was substantiated. The results indicated that the Home section of the Inventory is capable of yielding results significantly similar to those obtained by means of a lengthy interview. 8. The findings of the study suggest that the scores made on the Social Adjustment section are significantly related to active social participation. No statistically significant relationship was found between scores made on the Social section and social "popularity” arrived at by means of a popularity vote. Suggestion is made that the Social section might well be used in counselling for detecting those who are seriously withdrawing from social participation. 9. The validity of the Health section failed to be substantiated on the basis of health ratings given to 98 grade twelve boys by the School Nurse. 10. The validity of the Emotional Adjustment section failed to be substantiated on the basis of composite emotional adjustment ratings arrived at by means of the ratings of the School Nurse and the writer, together with information given by each student during an interview. 11. To more satisfactorily evaluate the Adjustment Inventory as a tool for use in a guidance and counselling programme in high schools, a specially devised Student Problem Poll was constructed with the view of determining where the four problem areas included within the Inventory fell in relationship to other fields considered important by grade twelve students. According to the estimations of the students, other areas of problems are considered to be more important than, or as equally as important as the four areas included in the Inventory.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207