The self-reported well-being of children in Namibia: Testing hedonic and eudaimonic instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although research on hedonic and eudaimonic children’s well-being is growing, these constructs need to be understood within the African context. In this study we validated two psychometric scales with 10 and 12-year-old children (n = 2 035) in the Namibian setting: the Children’s Worlds Subjective Well-being Scale (CW-SWBS, measuring subjective well-being) and the Children’s Worlds Psychological Well-being Scale (CW-PSWBS, measuring psychological well-being). We tested the fit of each scale within the pooled sample as well as scalar invariance between boys’ and girls’ answers, as well as between age-groups. Results support a good fit and convergent validity for both scales with the pooled sample. Sex invariance was supported for the CW-SWBS. However, the comparability of the answering style of boys and girls at 12 years old was not supported for the CW-PSWBS. Therefore, these findings suggest a need for caution when using CW-PSWBS scores with early adolescents in the Namibian context.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".