The Well-Being Coaching Inventory (WCI): Questionnaire Development and Validation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the present study was to psychometrically test and validate the Well-being Coaching Inventory (WCI), a proposed measure of interconnected, whole-person well-being in the context of health and wellness coaching (HWC). Methods: Initially 49 items, the WCI was conceived with 4 dimensions: Mind, Body, Work, and Life. The inventory was evaluated in 3 sequential studies to test: (a) face validity, (b) convergent validity, and (c) predictive validity. Expert judgment, correlational analyses, and factor analyses were techniques applied to collected WCI data. Results: After statistical evaluation (n = 261) of fit to each dimension, the WCI was shortened to 20 items that demonstrated convergent validity. Further use of confirmatory factor analyses and exploratory structural equation model in a large sample study (n = 531) provided additional support for the inventory's convergent validity. Through correlation analyses to theoretically related concepts predictive validity was established. Conclusions: The WCI is a valid, applicable, and reliable scale for use in HWC research and practice. It is an instrument that will aid HWC practitioners and researchers as a central outcome measure for their practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it