MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W335515389 · doi:10.52041/serj.v11i2.333

SURVEYS ASSESSING STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD STATISTICS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

2012· review· en· W335515389 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics Education Research Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)ValiditySummary statisticsPsychometricsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students with positive attitudes toward statistics are likely to show strong academic performance in statistics courses. Multiple surveys measuring students’ attitudes toward statistics exist; however, a comparison of the validity and reliability of interpretations based on their scores is needed. A systematic review of relevant electronic databases yielded 532 citations, 78 of which were reviewed, and 35 included in a final analysis. Fifteen instruments were identified; however, evidence of validity and reliability has only accumulated for the Statistics Attitude Scale, Attitudes Toward Statistics Scale, and Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics (two versions). In conclusion, a number of surveys exist, but there is a paucity of peer-reviewed validity and reliability evidence. First published November 2012 at Statistics Education Research Journal: Archives

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.677
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.024 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it