The Development of a Survey Instrument to Assess Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students’ Resilience and Risk for Self-Harm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8 Background: Australian policies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing outline 9 the importance of local community-based interventions; for adolescents, school-based 10 programs are considered beneficial. However, there is a lack of localised data to determine 11 levels of resilience and risk, and thus whether programs are effective. This paper describes the 12 challenges and opportunities in collaboratively designing and piloting a localised survey 13 instrument to measure Indigenous students’ resilience and upstream risk factors for self-harm; 14 and the resultant instrument. 15 Methods: A participatory action research approach was used to engage education staff, health 16 care providers, students and researchers to design and pilot the survey instrument. A six-phased 17 process facilitated survey development: 1) defining the logic and exploring the evidence; 2) 18 understanding and tailoring for context; 3) testing for feasibility and relevance; 4) testing for 19 appropriateness and comprehension; 5) facilitating survey administration; and 6) refining the 20 instrument. Processes in each phase were recorded and transcribed with thematic analysis used 21 to identify key challenges and opportunities arising during development. 22 Results: Four key challenges and opportunities were identified: 1) the relevance of 23 international survey instruments for Indigenous Australian students; 2) accounting for distinct 24 environments; 3) the balance between assessing risk and protective factors; and 4) tailoring 25 for literacy levels and school engagement. The final Student Survey instrument comprised 26 four demographic, 44 resilience, nine risk and 35 service use and satisfaction questions. The T4S will 27 be administered routinely on annual student intake. 28 29 Discussion and conclusion: The six-phased participatory processes resulted in a tailored 30 instrument that could identify the critical resilience and upstream risk factors facing a cohort 31 of Indigenous students who attend boarding schools for secondary education. Challenges 32 were resolved collaboratively and the pilot results were directly translated to education 33 practice and its integration with health services. Our results suggest that both the phased 34 process of developing the T4S, and the instrument itself can be adapted for other Indigenous 35 adolescent wellbeing and/or self-harm prevention programs.
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 | 0.001 | 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".