Exploratory Study: Measurement Invariance of the Therapeutic Recreation Job Responsibility Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the measurement invariance of the Therapeutic Recreation Job Responsibility Scale (TR-JRS). It measures four dimensions of recreational practitioners’ duties with 27 items: 1) administration, 2) therapy, 3) face-to-face leadership and 4) professional development. Measurement invariance assesses the ability of a single instrument, the TR-JRS, to measure duties among recreational practitioners working in different environments, members of separate professional associations, and to promote different aspects of their work. The sample comprised 417 members of the Canadian Therapeutic Recreation Association and the F´ederation qu´eb´ecoise du loisir en institution. The initial factorial measurement analysis showed metric invariance as the model of choice, though its overall fit was outside the usual acceptable criteria. A factor analysis with a target rotation resulted in a short scale of 14 items with an appropriate Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and Comparative Fit Index. It included the same four dimensions as the 27-item version. A measurement invariance analysis was also run on the short-form scale. The number of factors, position of items within factors, and factor loadings were equal in both groups. The absolute values of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and the Comparative Fit Index associated with the short form were over the acceptable cutoff points by a small margin. As expected, items means differed between the two groups and reliability coefficients were high. Such findings reflect this study’s exploratory nature. Hence, further studies on item development could improve fit indices in favor of a stronger invariance status for this scale, which measures an important construct in therapeutic recreation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".