MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379600306 · doi:10.1177/00315125231182281

Adaptation and Initial Validation of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire—Self with Spanish Physical Education Pre-Service Teachers

2023· review· en· W4379600306 on OpenAlexaff
Rafael Burgueño, Meredith Rocchi, Antonio Granero‐Gallegos

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInterpersonal communicationDiscriminant validityTest validityContext (archaeology)Applied psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Interpersonal relationshipPsychometricsClinical psychologySocial psychologyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building upon Self-Determination Theory, the objective of this research was to gather validity and reliability evidence on the use of the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire (IBQ-Self) in the Spanish physical education (PE) teacher training context. Participants were 419 pre-service PE teachers (48.45% women; M age = 26.97; SD = 6.49) from eight public universities; all were enrolled in the Professional Master’s program in Education. We found psychometric support for a 24-item six-factor correlated model of the IBQ-Self that was invariant across gender. There was also evidence for discriminant validity and reliability of this instrument. Criterion validity was provided by positive relationships found between need satisfaction and need-supportive behaviors, and between need frustration and need-thwarting behaviors. Overall, the IBQ-Self is a valid and reliable measure of Spanish pre-service PE teachers’ perceptions of their own need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207