Examining Validity of the Candidate Notification Scale for Gifted Children by Mokken Scale Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the validity of the scale for identifying gifted children, whose validity was proven by exploratory, confirmatory factor analysis, and whose reliability was proven the Cronbach alpha coefficient for identifying children in the 3-6 age group, using Mokken scaling based on nonparametric item response theory. The study group of the research consists of 253 students. As a result of the analysis of the 13-item 3-dimensional scale (above average ability, creativity and task commitment) with Monotone homogeneity Model, it is seen that a one-dimensional structure is obtained and the model fits when analyzed as a three-dimensional construct. For model data fit, when the discrimination and reliability values of the items are examined, it can be said that the one-dimensional structure of the scale is at an acceptable level, and relatively higher values are obtained for each criterion in the three-dimensional structure compared to the one-dimensional structure. Based on the findings, it can be interpreted that a parallel result was obtained in the validity study based on non-parametric item response theory of the scale, which was developed based on confirmatory factor analysis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".