MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brief report: A confirmatory approach to the validation of the peer group norm questionnaire

2016· article· en· W2347123011 on OpenAlexaff
Rhea Marshall‐Denton, Marie‐Hélène Véronneau, Thomas J. Dishion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityMeasurement invarianceExploratory factor analysisPerceptionSocial psychologyNorm (philosophy)Structural equation modelingTest validityPeer groupDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the internal validity of the "Perception of Peer Group Norms Questionnaire" (PPGNQ), a 17-item measure that assesses middle school students' perceptions of positive and negative norms among their grade mates. The sample consisted of 1073 Grade 6 students. The factorability of the two hypothesized factors was assessed with Exploratory Factor Analysis and a clear two-factor structure emerged. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis this two-factor model evidenced good fit once items of similar wording and subject matter were permitted to correlate. Support was found for metric, strict, scalar, construct and latent means invariance between genders, suggesting that boys and girls perceived items similarly. The results indicate that the PPGNQ may be recommended as a research questionnaire that demonstrates high internal validity and measurement invariance, and can be used to study the influence of the perception of both negative and positive norms on adolescent behavior in school settings.

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)0.001
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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207