A Determination of the Construct Validity of Both an Adapted Self-Confidence Questionnaire, the Personal Evaluation Inventory [PEI], (Shrauger & Schohn, 1995) and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Questionnaire (Taylor, 1953)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives in this research were to determine the construct validity of both an adapted self-confidence questionnaire, the Personal Evaluation Inventory (PEI), developed by Shrauger and Schohn, and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) questionnaire, which was adapted from the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. The research was conducted in two girls’ primary schools in Saudi Arabia to collect relevant data on the convergent and discriminant validity of the GAD and PEI questionnaires using the Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) matrix to prove construct validity. Sixty students and two teachers filled in questionnaires, with each student evaluating themselves and, then, their peers. The teachers evaluated themselves, their self-confidence and generalised degree of their anxiety disorder. The results were that the MTMM analysis supported, to a large extent, both convergent and discriminant validity of the analysed data from students and teachers on two traits (self-confidence and generalised anxiety disorder) and across three methods of measurement (self-reporting, peer-rating and teacher-rating). The results were that the Mono-Trait Mono-Method coefficients were relatively high, and there was relative strength in the Hetero-Trait Mono-Method coefficients. The Hetero-Trait Mono-Method coefficients were reasonable for self-confidence and for the generalised anxiety disorder questionnaires, but teacher-ratings for both traits were unexpected. Furthermore, the Hetero-Trait Hetero-Method coefficients were not constant and showed an unstable variance. In conclusion, the PEI and GAD questionnaires possess acceptable construct validity, but that the teacher-ratings for both the PEI and the GAD questionnaires needed modification in order to attain the desirable construct validity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".