MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390811814 · doi:10.5539/hes.v14n1p54

The Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure the Learning of Context University Skills and Workplace-recognized Skills Test among Students WIE in Rural College Thailand

2024· article· en· W4390811814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jetnipit Kunchai

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisPsychologyContext (archaeology)Goodness of fitReliability (semiconductor)Construct validityScale (ratio)Variance (accounting)Structural equation modelingTest (biology)Sample (material)Medical educationStatisticsApplied psychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A questionnaire for measuring Context University Skills and Workplace-Recognized Skills (LCUS-WRS) requires a validated and reliable instrument. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to measure learning of context university skills and workplace-recognized skills, in order to carry out an advanced psychometric properties analysis of Work-Integrated Education (WIE) students and the skills of LCUS-WRS, including internal and external reliability. Methods: We conducted multi-stage random sampling, with a sample consisting of 728 students WIE from 20 rural colleges in Thailand. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed on a subset of the sample (n = 279), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted on another subset (n = 449), both in different subgroups. Additionally, the researcher analyzed the internal consistency and temporal reliability of the scale in the instrument. Results: Using exploratory factor analysis with 39 items 6 factors and accounted for 55.881% of variance was identified of the variance for the CFA model. The model achieved a goodness-of-fit of chi-square (c2 ) = 582.907, df = 308, p = .000, c2 /df = 1.90, GFI = .979, AGFI = .985, RMSEA = .030, SRMR = .030 Conclusion: LCUS-WRS scale has solid construct of validity and excellent internal consistency which to analyze psychometric properties It has optimum temporal reliability. Therefore, the indicated that the dimensions of measuring of LCUS-WRS guaranteed its use in higher education institutions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207