10.1708/2476.25890
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: After critical examination of several aspects relating to the evaluation of some dimensions of emotional intelligence through self-assessment tools, is described the procedure of construction and validation of an Index for its measurement, conceived only for the routine assessment of health promotion programs mental in schools that include among their objectives the improvement of emotional intelligence specifically "outcome-oriented". METHODS: On the basis of the two most common international tools, are listed 27 items plus 6 of control, illustrated two Focus Group (FG) of students (face validity). The scale obtained by FG was administered to 300 students, and the results were submitted to factorial analysis (construct validity). It was also evaluated the internal consistency with Cronbach's Alpha and studied concurrent validity with the emotional quotient inventory, a scale of perceived self-efficacy and a stress test rating. RESULTS: From the analysis of FG all the original items were modified, deleted 4, and reduced the encoding system from 6 to 4 levels of Likert scale. Of the 23 items included in the analysis have emerged five factors (intra-psychic dimension, interpersonal, impulsivity, adaptive coping, sense of self-efficacy) for a total of 15 items. Very satisfactory were the results of the validation process of internal consistency (0.72) and the concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The results are positive. It is obtained in fact the shortest routine assessment tool currently available in Italy which constitutes a real Index, for which compilation are required on average 3 minutes. Is emphasized the characteristic of an Index, and not of questionnaire or interview for clinical use, highlighting the only specific use for mental health promotion programs in schools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.966 | 0.976 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".