A Polish adaptation of the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The paper presents the results of work on the Polish adaptation of the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS). It presents the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the tool. METHODS: The research was quantitative in nature and it was carried out in a correlation scheme. The respondents completed a set of questionnaires. 880 subjects aged 60-80 years (M = 68.15; SD = 5.96) participated in the study. Apart from the SAWS six other psychological methods were used. The selection of measuring tools was purposeful. RESULTS: The final Polish version of the SAWS consists of 40 items (including 36 diagnostic ones) that make up 5 dimensions of wisdom: (1) "Critical Life Experience", (2) "Emotional Regulation", (3) "Reminiscence and Reflectiveness",(4) "Openness" and (5) "Humor". The reliability index for the entire scale (36 items) was α = 0.92 (very high). Reliability values (Cronbach's α) for individual scales vary from α = 0.60 to α = 0.84. The validity of the scale was evaluated by means of confirmatory analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with the original version of the scale, thus it has been indicated that the Polish version of the SAWS fulfils the psychometric requirements for psychological tests. The scale can be applied in scientific research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".