MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550319977 · doi:10.1111/jora.12296

Adaptation and Validation of the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule for Use With High School Dropouts

2016· article· en· W2550319977 on OpenAlexafffund
Véronique Dupéré, Éric Dion, Kate L. Harkness, Julie McCabe, Éliane Thouin, Sophie Parent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsStressorPsychologyPsychosocialConcurrent validityInter-rater reliabilityReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyPopulationDevelopmental psychologySchedulePredictive validityAdaptation (eye)Dropout (neural networks)PsychometricsPsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental healthRating scaleComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Life Events and Difficulties Schedule (LEDS) is considered the standard for measuring psychosocial stressor exposure, but it has not been used with academically at-risk adolescents, including high school dropouts. The goal of this study was to (1) adapt the LEDS for use with this population, and (2) examine the reliability (interrater) and validity (concurrent and predictive) of this adaptation among a sample of vulnerable adolescents (N = 545). Good reliability coefficients (.79-.90) were obtained, and stressor exposure was associated with concurrent criteria indexing mental health outcomes (depression) and major risk factors for dropout (administratively recorded and self-reported). Also, LEDS scores predicted dropout beyond these risk factors. The adapted LEDS appears useful for describing academically struggling adolescents' stressor exposure.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.358
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 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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