Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent ratings of social-emotional development on standardized assessment instruments for a sample of 69 kindergarten children in a mid-size Canadian city are utilized to examine the validity of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999a). Results provide support for the DECA's reliability and internal validity when used with a sample different from the standardization sample. In general, results illustrate an expected pattern of convergence and divergence between the DECA scales and scales from two comparison instruments, the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) and the Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Merrell, 2002). The DECA's protective factor scales relate positively to other measures of social skills/adaptive behaviours, and negatively to other measures of problematic/clinical behaviours; these correlations were strongest for the DECA's Self-Control scale, and weakest for the DECA's Attachment scale. The DECA’s Behavioral Concerns screener scale related negatively to other measures of social skills/adaptive behaviours, and positively to other measures of problematic/clinical behaviours, particularly those reflecting externalizing behaviour problems. The DECA is a psychometrically sound instrument that makes an important and unique contribution to the field of social-emotional assessment of young children.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".