Development and Assessment of the Personal Emotional Capital Questionnaire for Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The present study developed and evaluated a personal emotional capital questionnaire (PECQ) for adults that assessed 10 domains of personal emotional capital. (2) Method: Initially, 100 items were created and then administered to students attending Semnan University and Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran. Of the 700 questionnaires distributed, 527 were completed in full. Students were sampledusing the multi-stage random cluster method. Exploratory factor analyses, Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliability were used to evaluate the scale. (3) Results: The ten components ofthe PECQ were confirmed. Test-retest correlations after 30 days were high, as was Cronbach's alpha (0.94). Thecomponents highly correlatedwith overall emotional capital. The PECQ displayed convergent validity as it positively correlated with the Keyes's Mental Health Continuum-Short Form and students'GPAs. The PECQ displayed divergent validity as it negatively correlated with measures of depression, anxiety and stress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS21)). Differences in overall PECQ scores and its components were examined for several variables including gender, age, marital and employment status, academic program, and field of study. PECQ scores were not sensitive to the order of administering questionnaires. (4) Conclusion: The results suggest that the PECQ is a valid and reliable measure of personal emotional capital and supports its use in adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".