Opposite-Sex Relationship Questionnaire for Male Adolescents: Development and Psychometric Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a mixed-methods, sequential, exploratory design. In the qualitative phase, an in-depth interview approach was used to identify the properties and dimensions to be included in the Opposite-Sex Relationship Questionnaire for Male Adolescents (OSRQMA). In the quantitative phase, the psychometric properties of the OSRQMA were evaluated according to the concepts of face, content, and construct validity. Reliability and stability were assessed with Cronbach's alpha (α) and McDonald's coefficient omega (ω), and with test–retest analysis respectively. A preliminary questionnaire was developed, including 61 items that emerged from the qualitative phase of the study. Based on the impact scores for face validity, and the cutoff points for the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI), the preliminary questionnaire was reduced to 53 items. The Kaiser criteria (eigenvalues >1) and scree plot tests demonstrated that 22 items forming four factors, which were labelled ‘innate predilection’, ‘abstinence’, ‘family attitudes’, and ‘peer pressure’, were optimum, accounting for an estimated 53.449% of the variance. These scales had acceptable levels of internal consistency (α = .854, ω = 0.977) and stability ( r = .892, p < .001).
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 | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".