Development of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Affirmative Counseling Self-Efficacy Inventory – Short Form (LGB-CSI-SF).
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Affirmative Counseling Self-Efficacy Inventory - Short Form (LGB-CSI-SF) was developed to facilitate LGB-affirmative counseling training, as well as process and outcome research, by offering a brief psychometrically supported version of the original LGB-CSI measure to researchers and clinicians. Five hundred seventy-five participants (435 licensed mental health professionals and 140 graduate students/trainees) constituted the sample. Confirmatory factor analyses of the 32 items from the original LGB-CSI yielded a new 15-item version of the measure composed of 5 factors (consisting of 3 items each) that assess counselor self-efficacy to perform lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) affirmative counseling behaviors (Application of Knowledge, Advocacy Skills, Self-Awareness, Relationship, and Assessment). The LGB-CSI-SF evidenced high internal consistency and adequate test-retest stability. Convergent validity was supported by correlations between LGB-CSI-SF total scores and Application of Knowledge, Advocacy Skills, Relationship, and Assessment subscales and instruction in LGB issues, as well as personal/professional relations with LGB individuals. More affirmative attitudes toward LGB persons positively related with total scores and Advocacy Skills, Self-Awareness, and Relationship subscales. Discriminant validity was evidenced by an absence of relations between LGB-CSI-SF subscales and a measure of impression management. We found no associations between Advocacy Skills, Assessment, and Relationship subscales and a measure of Self-Deception. Recommendations for implementing the LGB-CSI-SF in future LGB-affirmative counseling self-efficacy based research and training interventions are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it