Problem-Solving Skills as a Mediator Variable in the Relationship between Habits of Mind and Psychological Hardiness of University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the role of problem-solving skills as a mediator variable in the relationships between habits of mind and the psychological hardiness among university students, and to identify the difference between male and female students in each of the habits of mind, psychological hardiness, and problem-solving skills. The sample comprised of 285 male and female, third-year Faculty of Education, University students. The data collection utilized the habits of mind scale, the problem-solving scale, and the psychological hardiness scale (Mekhemer, 1996). SPSS v.25 and AMOS v.24 were used to process data. The findings revealed that problem-solving skills partially mediates the relationship between habits of mind and psychological hardiness, and the results also demonstrated that there are no statistically significant differences between male and female students in habits of mind, problem-solving skills, and psychological hardiness. Future research suggestions include planning stakeholders at the university stage should take into consideration the necessity to integrate habits of mind and problem-solving skills in curricula, and providing training for faculty members to enhance university students' psychological hardiness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".