Adaptation of the Relationship and Motivation Scale to the Turkish Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was twofold: first to adapt the Relationship and Motivation (REMO) scale addressing role of peers and teachers in students’ motivations into Turkish culture, and second to determine whether there were any differences between girls and boys regarding the scores obtained from this scale. To achieve these aims, the present research was designed to be comprised of three consecutive studies. In Study 1, linguistic equivalence was established, and results of an Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) performed on data obtained from 202 students showed that structure of the original scale was supported. In Study 2, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using data obtained from 496 Turkish students, and the results confirmed the results of EFA. Additionally, the validity evidence was obtained by conducting another EFA with 528 students. Moreover, reliability coefficients were also found to be varying in an acceptable range. Including the same participants of Study 2 in Study 3, t-test results showed that girls had significantly higher mean scores on the subscales of peers and teachers as positive motivators, and teachers as negative motivators. On the other hand, boys had significantly higher mean scores on the scale of peers as negative motivators. Results of these studies suggest that Turkish version of REMO is conceptually equivalent to original REMO, and similarly reliable and valid. Therefore, the adapted scale can not only be used in cross-cultural comparison and but also for determining the differentiation in the relations of students with their peers and teachers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".