How useful is the Rehearsal Scale for Children - Chinese in measuring emotional rehearsal in pre-adolescents of different ages?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rehearsal Scale for Children – Chinese (RSC-C) measures the propensity to rehearse emotionally taxing experiences in children, however, the initial development of the scale has overlooked the validity of the scale for pre-adolescents of different ages whose cognitive development may differ considerably. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the internal validity of RSC-C for the different age groups (aged 6-7, 8-9 and 10-12) across an age range of 6 to12 years. Confirmatory factor analysis based on the original factor structure suggested that the internal validity of the RSC-C is poor and the scale was modified for the age groups concerned. Test-retest reliability for the modified scales was stronger for the younger age groups and moderate concurrent validity against the Chinese Trait Anxiety Scale for Children (CTAS-C) was established. No gender differences were found. The results highlight the importance of testing the validity of a psychometric instrument across different age ranges, given the potential for significant developmental differences. The current study also provided a new set of psychometrically sound RSC-C for the different age groups to promote greater understanding of the role of emotional rehearsal and psychological stress in physical and psychological well-being in 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".