Psychometric Evaluation of the Norwegian Versions of the Modified Group Environment Questionnaire and the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to translate the modified Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) and the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ) into Norwegian, examine the factor structure and reliability of the scales through independent clusters model confirmatory factor analysis (ICM-CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and examine differential item functioning (DIF) as a function of sex. Three-hundred-and-thirty-three athletes (M(SD)age = 18.7(2.60) years; 33% females) completed the GEQ. Three-hundred-and-three athletes (M(SD)age = 15.0(1.48) years; 26% females) completed the YSEQ. Results indicated acceptable fit indices for a four-factor, a second-order two-factor (task and social), and a second order one-factor ESEM model for the GEQ. Cross-loadings and high latent factor correlations are issues in need of attention. The study supported the structural validity and reliability of the Norwegian YSEQ, with no major differences between the ICM-CFA and ESEM. No evidence of DIF as a function of sex was identified in either of the scales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".