Preliminary Study: Validation of Measure for Psychology Students Employability Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to validate the measurement of Psychology students Employability Skills. This research used quantitative method by conducting two studies, exploratory and confirmatory studies. The sample used in this study was 206 Psychology students. The references in developing this measurement are SCANS (1992), The Conference Board of Canada (1992), Cotton (1993), Robinson (2000), Rosenberg (2012), Hamid (2014) which produced 87 questionnaire items with six aspects. The result of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) showed 27 items that are grouped together into five factors namely thinking skills, basic academic, interpersonal skills, technology skills, and personal qualities. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) yields 16 items (CR = 0.81) with three factors namely Basic Academic (CR = 0.74), Thinking Skills (CR = 0.70), Sociability (CR = 0.64). The model of measurement is fit for the first-order (Chi-Square = 105.95, df = 93, p-value = 0.12, RMSEA = 0.029) and for second-order (Chi-Square = 101.21, df = 83, p-value = 0.066, RMSEA = 0.034). This measurement is able to provide an evaluation for Psychology students employability skills. Implication of this evaluation can be used to design intervention in enhancing employability skills among Psychology students.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".