MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7009091934

Developing a teacher anxiety rating scale suitable for five to seven-year-old children

2009· dissertation· en· W7009091934 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRating scaleShynessAnxietyScale (ratio)PopulationPsychometricsData collection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis describes the development of a rating scale designed to be used by teachers to identifu anxious and shy children, aged 5 to 7 years, in Kindergarten and Grade One.Currently, there are no instruments designed specifically for that purpose that address this age group.Children experiencing difficulty with internalinngdisorders such as anxiety, shyness, and behavioural inhibition represent a growing segment of the population (Merrell, 2001).Evidence indicates that the educational, psychological, and emotional needs of these children are not being addressed @arlow, 2002)-I interviewed Kindergarten and grade One teachers to find out what behaviours, drawn from the literature on childhood anxiety disorders, they recognize as shyness and anxiety.Information obtained from the teachers then was used to formulate, construct, and evaluate a rating scale to be administered by teachers.The thesis begins with an overview, followed in Chapter 2by a literature review of the research on arxiety in young children.The methods used to obtain the information salient to the formulation and construction of a rating scale are discussed in Chapter 3. The data are presented in a two-study format.The first study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods, using semi-structwed interviews with teachers, and their completion of a prototype rating scale.The second study consisted of the administration of the scale and comparisons of its psychometric properties to other instruments.The thesis concludes with a discussion, in Chapter 4, of the results and limitations of the studies.Anxiety f;.ating Scale 2Increasingly, teachers are confronted with a growing number of children who engage in a wide range of inappropriate behaviours (Charles,2002).Some of these misbehaviours are overt and easily recognized as problem behaviours.However, there are some behaviows which may be confusing to teachers because they are not overt, but are difficult to notice.Yet, the teachers may sense that something is amiss.Anxiety, shyness, or inhibition may be explanations for the problems that some children are experiencing.Anxiety, shyness, inhibition, and depression are classified as internalizing problems or disorders which children may experience, but do not express.Significance of the Study.This study is intended to help educators to understand better how they might identi$ young children who have problems with shyness, anxiety, and behavioural inhibition.The steps involved in the development of a suitable instrument to be used for the early identification of children at risk of developing anxiety will be presented.It is anticipated that the results of this study will help provide a basis for determining the educational, medical, and psychological interventions designed to best accommodate the young children in our schools who are afflicted by anxiety.Internalízing problems.Anxiety, shyness, and behavioural inhibition are referred to as internalizingdisorders because the principal feature of these problem behaviours is that the children who are experiencing them most often tend to experience them in an internal fashion.That is, they hold in the distress to which these disorders give rise, rather than expressing it outwardly.The three terms, arxiety, shyness, and behavioural inhibition, often are used in an interchangeable fashion.This likely is due to their being very closely enmeshed in meaning.For the purposes of this study, anxiety is the preferred Kagan, Reznick, & snidman 1988; Merrell, 2001; wittchen, Nelson, & Lachner l998;wittchen, Kessler, pfister, & Lieb 2}}};

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→