MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296149947 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v8n1p125

The Questionnaire of Marital Conflicts: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

2016· article· en· W2296149947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alireza Boostanipoor, Bagher Sanai Zaker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisContext (archaeology)Social psychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The family provides a healthy context for growth and reform. The function of the family is to support the character formation of its members while creating among them the sense of belonging. There have always been several views about the family with healthy and unhealthy functions. What is present in all these views is that a healthy family is a family in which the spouses are in a healthy and effective relationship. However, most of the couples who attend counseling centers state that their main problems are relationship problems and conflicts. So, there have been always necessary to have a tool for measuring the concept of conflict and its dimensions in every cultural context. To meet this need, the questionnaire of marital conflict has been provided which primary from involves 42 questions in 7 subscales; which, in the present research, it has been tried, to evaluate another one of the main dimensions of marital conflict, decreased effective contact, by adding 12 questions to the primary questionnaire. Then, on its confirmatory factor analysis, the present questionnaire was filled out by 270 participants. The results are indicative of optimal psychometric properties (α=0.96), and accepted clinical and scholarly applications.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207