MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981063272

Psychometric Properties of the Self-Perception Profile for Children in Children with Chronic Illness.

2017· article· en· W2981063272 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Ferro, Jennie Tang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminant validityConvergent validityPolychoric correlationPsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)Quality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryCorrelationInternal consistencyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) is a commonly used measure of self-concept in children, but little research has examined its psychometric properties in children newly-diagnosed with chronic illness. METHOD: Confirmatory factor analysis and examination of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the SPPC was conducted in 31 children newly-diagnosed with asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, food allergy, or juvenile arthritis. RESULTS: The unidimensionality of each domain of the SPPC was confirmed, internal reliability was robust (α=.83-.95), and inter-domain polychoric correlations ranged from weak to strong (ρ=.05-.85) Convergent validity was demonstrated with measures of global self-concept and domains of quality of life. The Global Self-worth domain showed discriminant validity between children with and without comorbid mental disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Findings extend the psychometric properties of the SPPC as a valid and reliable scale in children newly-diagnosed with chronic illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→