MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889660990 · doi:10.1111/jar.12532

The GO4KIDDS School Satisfaction Scale

2018· article· en· W2889660990 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne Perry, Meisha Charles, Busi Ncube, Jonathan A. Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal consistencyScale (ratio)PsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Life satisfactionRating scaleConsistency (knowledge bases)Measure (data warehouse)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: School experience is an important part of the life of children with developmental disabilities (DD) and their families. Research suggests that parents of children vary in their level of satisfaction with their child's school, but methodology and results have varied and no consistent reliable measure of school satisfaction exists. This paper presents a new brief measure of school satisfaction along with preliminary information on its psychometric properties. METHOD: Parents (n = 185) of children with moderate to severe DD completed a longer questionnaire that included the 9-item GO4KIDDS School Satisfaction Scale. RESULTS: The GO4KIDDS School Satisfaction Scale demonstrates high internal consistency reliability (α = 0.93), good item-total correlations, and strong correlations with a single-item rating of school satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Results support reliability and validity, making the proposed scale valuable for survey research investigating school satisfaction among parents of children with DD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207