@article{34200,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Praxeologische Kompetenzansätze verstehen Kompetenz als sozial erlernt und folglich als relativ zum sozialen Kontext. Damit einher geht die Frage, wie solche praxeologisch gerahmten Kompetenzen eigentlich unabhängig von der sie hervorbringenden Praxis evaluiert werden können – und eben dadurch erst für einen breiteren Kompetenzdiskurs fruchtbar sind. Die Dokumentarische Evaluationsforschung bietet hierzu erste Anhaltspunkte, offenbart aber auch Grenzen, die mit dem Evaluationsverständnis zusammenhängen, sich jedoch in der Forschungspraxis so nicht finden lassen. Aus der Differenz zwischen Methode und Praxis dokumentarischer Evaluation lässt sich formulieren, wie eine praxeologische Evaluation gestaltet werden könnte. Dabei spielt die Formulierung von Referenzrahmen eine zentrale Rolle, welche einerseits der zu evaluierenden Praktik external sein, andererseits praktisch formuliert werden müssen, damit sie soziale Praktiken jenseits ihrer eigenen Sinnhaftigkeit evaluativ (er-)fassen können.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Bloh, Thiemo}},
  issn         = {{1619-5515}},
  journal      = {{Zeitschrift für Evaluation}},
  keywords     = {{Strategy and Management, Applied Psychology, Social Sciences (miscellaneous), Education, Communication, Statistics and Probability}},
  number       = {{02}},
  pages        = {{193--215}},
  publisher    = {{Waxmann}},
  title        = {{{Rekonstruktive Evaluationsforschung im Kontext praxeologischer Kompetenzdiskurse. Kritische Reflexionen und konzeptionelle Überlegungen zur Dokumentarischen Evaluationsforschung}}},
  doi          = {{10.31244/zfe.2022.02.02}},
  volume       = {{2022}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{32361,
  author       = {{Scharfen, Hans-Erik and Lehmann, Tim and Büchel, Daniel and Baumeister, Jochen}},
  issn         = {{1469-0292}},
  journal      = {{Psychology of Sport and Exercise}},
  keywords     = {{Applied Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{Cortical responses to sport-specific stimuli in a standing stop signal task}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102250}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{33219,
  author       = {{Gries, Thomas and Müller, Veronika and Jost, John T.}},
  issn         = {{1047-840X}},
  journal      = {{Psychological Inquiry}},
  keywords     = {{General Psychology}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{65--83}},
  publisher    = {{Informa UK Limited}},
  title        = {{{The Market for Belief Systems: A Formal Model of Ideological Choice}}},
  doi          = {{10.1080/1047840x.2022.2065128}},
  volume       = {{33}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{33382,
  author       = {{Hirtz, Raphael and Libuda, Lars and Hinney, Anke and Föcker, Manuel and Bühlmeier, Judith and Holterhus, Paul-Martin and Kulle, Alexandra and Kiewert, Cordula and Kuhnert, Ronny and Cohrdes, Caroline and Peters, Triinu and Hebebrand, Johannes and Grasemann, Corinna}},
  issn         = {{0165-0327}},
  journal      = {{Journal of Affective Disorders}},
  keywords     = {{Psychiatry and Mental health, Clinical Psychology}},
  pages        = {{103--112}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{Age at menarche relates to depression in adolescent girls: Comparing a clinical sample to the general pediatric population}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.jad.2022.08.092}},
  volume       = {{318}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{30218,
  author       = {{Tuisku, Outi and Johansson-Pajala, Rose-Marie and Hoppe, Julia Amelie and Pekkarinen, Satu and Hennala, Lea and Thommes, Kirsten and Gustafsson, Christine and Melkas, Helinä}},
  issn         = {{0144-929X}},
  journal      = {{Behaviour & Information Technology}},
  keywords     = {{Human-Computer Interaction, General Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Developmental and Educational Psychology}},
  pages        = {{1--17}},
  publisher    = {{Informa UK Limited}},
  title        = {{{Assistant nurses and orientation to care robot use in three European countries}}},
  doi          = {{10.1080/0144929x.2022.2042736}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35522,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Following concepts describing lesson planning as a form of anticipatory reflection, preservice physics teachers’ reflection skills are assumed to be positively connected with their planning skills. However, empirical evidence on this is scarce. To explore how relations between these specific skills change over the course of a field experience controlling for influences of professional knowledge, we conduct a pre-post field study with N = 95 preservice physics teachers in a one-semester field experience. Content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (paper-and-pencil tests), and reflection and planning skills (standardized performance assessments) were assessed before and after the field experience. Path analyses revealed almost no influence of reflection skills on planning skills. Reflections skills did not contribute to preservice teachers planning skills beyond knowledge, indicating both constructs might represent rather independent abilities. The results show the need for further development of models describing the development of teachers’ professional knowledge and skills in academic teacher education and for the development of concepts for a better integration of reflection and lesson planning in field experiences.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Vogelsang, Christoph and Kulgemeyer, Christoph and Riese, Josef}},
  issn         = {{2227-7102}},
  journal      = {{Education Sciences}},
  keywords     = {{Public Administration, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Computer Science Applications, Computer Science (miscellaneous), Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation}},
  number       = {{7}},
  publisher    = {{MDPI AG}},
  title        = {{{Learning to Plan by Learning to Reflect?—Exploring Relations between Professional Knowledge, Reflection Skills, and Planning Skills of Preservice Physics Teachers in a One-Semester Field Experience}}},
  doi          = {{10.3390/educsci12070479}},
  volume       = {{12}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35622,
  author       = {{Scharfen, Hans-Erik and Lehmann, Tim and Büchel, Daniel and Baumeister, Jochen}},
  issn         = {{1469-0292}},
  journal      = {{Psychology of Sport and Exercise}},
  keywords     = {{Applied Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{Cortical responses to sport-specific stimuli in a standing stop signal task}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102250}},
  volume       = {{63}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{34461,
  abstract     = {{Teaching is a highly demanding profession that requires handling multiple and potentially contradictory goals. Therefore, it is likely that teachers experience conflict between work-related goals on a daily basis. Intraindividual goal conflict may occur when individuals pursue multiple goals drawing on the same limited resources (resource-based goal conflict), or when two or more goals are incompatible in terms of goal attainment strategy or desired end states (inherent goal conflict). Because goal conflict is typically associated with negative effects such as attenuated motivation and wellbeing, teacher goal conflict may jeopardize teaching motivation. This cross-sectional study investigated the effects of in-service teachers’ (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 302) goal conflicts on their autonomous (intrinsic and identified regulation) and controlled (introjected and extrinsic regulation) teaching motivation and tested the satisfaction of teachers’ basic need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as mediators. In line with our hypotheses, results from structural equation modeling showed that frequently experiencing resource-based goal conflict leads to a lower satisfaction of the basic need for autonomy, which, however, was unrelated to teaching motivation. In contrast, frequently experiencing inherent goal conflict attenuates the satisfaction of the basic need for competence, which, in turn, positively predicted autonomous teaching motivation and negatively predicted extrinsic regulation. As expected, relatedness was not associated with the experience of goal conflict. The discussion focuses on differential effects of the two types of goal conflict on teaching motivation and on the relevance to expand research on teachers’ intraindividual goal conflicts.}},
  author       = {{Gorges, Julia and Neumann, Phillip and Störtländer, Jan Christoph}},
  issn         = {{1664-1078}},
  journal      = {{Frontiers in Psychology}},
  keywords     = {{General Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Frontiers Media SA}},
  title        = {{{Teachers Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Goal Conflicts Affect Teaching Motivation Mediated by Basic Need Satisfaction}}},
  doi          = {{10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876521}},
  volume       = {{13}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35420,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p>Procrastination refers to voluntarily postponing an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for this delay, and students are considered to be especially negatively affected. According to estimates in the literature, at least half of the students believe procrastination impacts their academic achievements and well-being. As of yet, evidence-based ideas on how to differentiate severe from less severe cases of procrastination in this population do not exist, but are important in order to identify those students in need of support. The current study recruited participants from different universities in Sweden to participate in an anonymous online survey investigating self-rated levels of procrastination, impulsivity, perfectionism, anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life. Furthermore, diagnostic criteria for pathological delay (PDC) as well as self-report items and open-ended questions were used to determine the severity of their procrastination and its associated physical and psychological issues. In total, 732 participants completed the survey. A median-split on the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS) and the responses to the PDC were used to differentiate two groups; “less severe procrastination” (PPS ≤ 2.99; <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 344; 67.7% female; <jats:italic>M</jats:italic> age = 30.03; <jats:italic>SD</jats:italic> age = 9.35), and “severe procrastination” (PPS ≥ 3.00; <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 388; 66.2% female; <jats:italic>M</jats:italic> age = 27.76; <jats:italic>SD</jats:italic> age = 7.08). For participants in the severe group, 96–97% considered procrastination to a problem, compared to 42–48% in the less severe group. The two groups also differed with regard to considering seeking help for procrastination, 35–38% compared to 5–7%. Participants in the severe group also reported more problems of procrastination in different life domains, greater symptoms of psychological issues, and lower quality of life. A thematic analysis of the responses on what physical issues were related to procrastination revealed that these were characterized by stress and anxiety, e.g., tension, pain, and sleep and rest, while the psychological issues were related to stress and anxiety, but also depression, e.g., self-criticism, remorse, and self-esteem. The current study recommends the PPS to be used as an initial screening tool, while the PDC can more accurately determine the severity level of procrastination for a specific individual.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Rozental, Alexander and Forsström, David and Hussoon, Ayah and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}},
  issn         = {{1664-1078}},
  journal      = {{Frontiers in Psychology}},
  keywords     = {{General Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Frontiers Media SA}},
  title        = {{{Procrastination Among University Students: Differentiating Severe Cases in Need of Support From Less Severe Cases}}},
  doi          = {{10.3389/fpsyg.2022.783570}},
  volume       = {{13}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35415,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p> Abstract. Procrastination is the irrational delay of an intended task and is common among students. A delay can only be defined as procrastination when it is voluntary, the action was intended but not implemented, and the delay is accompanied by subjective discomfort. Established scales of procrastination cover mainly behavioral aspects but have neglected the emotional aspect. This inaccuracy concerning the construct validity might entail misconceptions of procrastination. Accordingly, we developed and validated the Behavioral and Emotional Academic Procrastination Scale (BEPS), which covers all aspects of the definition of procrastination. The 6-item scale measuring self-reported academic procrastination was tested in three studies. Study 1 ( N = 239) evaluated the psychometric qualities of the BEPS, indicating good item characteristics and internal consistency. Study 2 ( N = 1,441) used confirmatory factor analysis and revealed two correlated factors: one covering the behavioral aspect and the other reflecting the emotional aspect. Measurement invariance was shown through longitudinal and multigroup confirmatory factor analyses. Study 3 ( N = 234) provided evidence for the scale’s convergent validity through correlations with established procrastination scales, self-efficacy, and neuroticism. The BEPS thus economically operationalizes all characteristics of academic procrastination and appears to be a reliable and valid self-report measure. </jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Bobe, Julia and Schnettler, Theresa and Scheunemann, Anne and Fries, Stefan and Bäulke, Lisa and Thies, Daniel O. and Dresel, Markus and Leutner, Detlev and Wirth, Joachim and Klingsieck, Katrin B. and Grunschel, Carola}},
  issn         = {{1015-5759}},
  journal      = {{European Journal of Psychological Assessment}},
  keywords     = {{Applied Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Hogrefe Publishing Group}},
  title        = {{{Delaying Academic Tasks and Feeling Bad About It}}},
  doi          = {{10.1027/1015-5759/a000728}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35416,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p> Zusammenfassung. Eine gut ausgebildete diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrpersonen ist eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für gelingenden Unterricht und trägt maßgeblich zur akademischen und persönlichen Entwicklung von Schülern bei. Häufig sind Lehrpersonen jedoch nur bedingt dazu in der Lage, Schülermerkmale wie Leistung, Motivation oder Ängstlichkeit adäquat zu beurteilen. Eine Förderung der diagnostischen Kompetenz sollte bereits während des Studiums stattfinden, um Lehrpersonen früh auf diagnostische Situationen in der Schulpraxis vorzubereiten und negative Konsequenzen möglicher pädagogischer Fehlentscheidungen zu vermeiden. Dieser Beitrag vergleicht eine lehrendenzentrierte, eine problembasierte und eine digitale, simulationsbasierte Maßnahme zur Förderung unterschiedlicher Aspekte diagnostischer Kompetenz an einer Stichprobe von N = 166 Lehramtsstudierenden im Hinblick auf ihre Wirksamkeit. Es zeigen sich insbesondere Vorteile der simulationsbasierten Fördermaßnahme in den Bereichen intrinsische Motivation und Interesse sowie Nachteile der lehrendenzentrierten Maßnahme im Bereich des Wissens um das systematische Vorgehen im diagnostischen Prozess und der problembasierten Maßnahme im Bereich des Extraneous Cognitive Load. Die Ergebnisse werden insbesondere im Hinblick auf ihre praktischen Implikationen im Rahmen der Lehrerbildung und zunehmend digitalisierter Lehre diskutiert. </jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Grotegut, Lea and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}},
  issn         = {{1010-0652}},
  journal      = {{Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie}},
  keywords     = {{Developmental and Educational Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Hogrefe Publishing Group}},
  title        = {{{Wie können unterschiedliche Aspekte diagnostischer Kompetenz                     gefördert werden?}}},
  doi          = {{10.1024/1010-0652/a000352}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35419,
  abstract     = {{<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Research on procrastination covers a variety of individual factors (e.g., conscientiousness) and this focus is reflected in interventions against procrastination. Less emphasis is put on situational and social factors that may help students reduce procrastination, such as social interdependence. Therefore, this study investigates the relationship between interdependence with academic procrastination and affective variables. Two vignette studies with student samples (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic><jats:sub><jats:italic>1</jats:italic></jats:sub> = 320, <jats:italic>N</jats:italic><jats:sub><jats:italic>2</jats:italic></jats:sub> = 193) were conducted and data was analyzed with regression analyses and analyses of covariance. Results of both studies show lower state procrastination in group work with interdependence compared to individual work, especially in participants with high trait procrastination. This difference is more pronounced when interdependence is accompanied by an active commitment to finish the task on time. Further, interdependent group work is related to increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. The results demonstrate the relevance of situational and social factors for academic procrastination, and point toward new approaches for intervention.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Koppenborg, Markus and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}},
  issn         = {{1381-2890}},
  journal      = {{Social Psychology of Education}},
  keywords     = {{Sociology and Political Science, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{249--274}},
  publisher    = {{Springer Science and Business Media LLC}},
  title        = {{{Social factors of procrastination: group work can reduce procrastination among students}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s11218-021-09682-3}},
  volume       = {{25}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{35418,
  author       = {{Koppenborg, Markus and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}},
  issn         = {{1041-6080}},
  journal      = {{Learning and Individual Differences}},
  keywords     = {{Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Social Psychology}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{Group work and student procrastination}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102117}},
  volume       = {{94}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{48518,
  abstract     = {{Although the leadership literature has emphasized the importance of leader identity for leader behaviors and leader effectiveness, little is known about whether and how professionals, who are experts in their field and hold a formal leader role, construe a leader identity. To expand our understanding of leader identity construal, we explored how professors in German research universities interpreted their formal leader role and whether and how they saw themselves as leaders. Based on findings from an inductive interview study, we contribute to the literature in three ways: First, our findings imply that patterns of professional identity and leader identity dimensions likely predict when a leader role is <jats:italic>rejected</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>accommodated</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>incorporated</jats:italic>, or <jats:italic>emphasized</jats:italic>. Second, we explain why professionals with a formal leader role see themselves primarily as <jats:italic>specialists</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>mentors</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>managers</jats:italic>, or <jats:italic>shapers</jats:italic>. Third, we extend previous notions of the leader identity concept by elaborating on its dimensions. Our findings have practical implications on an individual and organizational level, and may help design more effective leadership development programs.}},
  author       = {{Rehbock, Stephanie K. and Hubner-Benz, Sylvia and Knipfer, Kristin and Peus, Claudia V.}},
  issn         = {{0269-994X}},
  journal      = {{Applied Psychology}},
  keywords     = {{Applied Psychology, Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Developmental and Educational Psychology}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{559--587}},
  publisher    = {{Wiley}},
  title        = {{{What kind of leader am I? An exploration of professionals' leader identity construal}}},
  doi          = {{10.1111/apps.12389}},
  volume       = {{72}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{44637,
  author       = {{Hoppe, Julia Amelie and Tuisku, Outi and Johansson-Pajala, Rose-Marie and Pekkarinen, Satu and Hennala, Lea and Gustafsson, Christine and Melkas, Helinä and Thommes, Kirsten}},
  issn         = {{2451-9588}},
  journal      = {{Computers in Human Behavior Reports}},
  keywords     = {{Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Computer Science Applications, Human-Computer Interaction, Applied Psychology, Neuroscience (miscellaneous)}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{When do individuals choose care robots over a human caregiver? Insights from a laboratory experiment on choices under uncertainty}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100258}},
  volume       = {{9}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{34295,
  author       = {{Hoppe, Julia Amelie and Tuisku, Outi and Johansson-Pajala, Rose-Marie and Pekkarinen, Satu and Hennala, Lea and Gustafsson, Christine and Melkas, Helinä and Thommes, Kirsten}},
  issn         = {{2451-9588}},
  journal      = {{Computers in Human Behavior Reports}},
  keywords     = {{Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Computer Science Applications, Human-Computer Interaction, Applied Psychology, Neuroscience (miscellaneous)}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{When do individuals choose care robots over a human caregiver? Insights from a laboratory experiment on choices under uncertainty}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100258}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{44636,
  author       = {{Hoppe, Julia A. and Tuisku, Outi and Johansson-Pajala, Rose-Marie and Pekkarinen, Satu and Hennala, Lea and Gustafsson, Christine and Melkas, Helinä and Thommes, Kirsten}},
  issn         = {{2451-9588}},
  journal      = {{Computers in Human Behavior Reports}},
  keywords     = {{Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Computer Science Applications, Human-Computer Interaction, Applied Psychology, Neuroscience (miscellaneous)}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier BV}},
  title        = {{{When do individuals choose care robots over a human caregiver? Insights from a laboratory experiment on choices under uncertainty}}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100258}},
  volume       = {{9}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{51210,
  author       = {{Tuisku, Outi and Johansson-Pajala, Rose-Marie and Hoppe, Julia Amelie and Pekkarinen, Satu and Hennala, Lea and Thommes, Kirsten and Gustafsson, Christine and Melkas, Helinä}},
  issn         = {{0144-929X}},
  journal      = {{Behaviour &amp; Information Technology}},
  keywords     = {{Human-Computer Interaction, General Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Developmental and Educational Psychology}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{758--774}},
  publisher    = {{Informa UK Limited}},
  title        = {{{Assistant nurses and orientation to care robot use in three European countries}}},
  doi          = {{10.1080/0144929x.2022.2042736}},
  volume       = {{42}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{37444,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p> Zusammenfassung. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird das Screening zur Erfassung des Leseverständnisses für die Klassen 6 – 7 (SELV 6 – 7) vorgestellt, welches Leseverständnis während des Lesens mittels der Maze-Prozedur erfasst. Der Test liegt in einer Print- (SELV-P) und Digitalversion (SELV-D) vor. Es wurden 5 Paralleltestformen entwickelt. Zwei Studien zur Überprüfung der Reliabilität und Validität in den Klassen 6 und 7 werden präsentiert, wobei drei verschiedene Maze-Scorings (1: korrekt, 2: korrekt-inkorrekt, 3: korrekt / bearbeitet) einander gegenübergestellt werden. Studie 1 (SELV-P, n = 222, davon 85 6. Klasse) zeigt, dass die 4 Formen (ohne Form 3) die gleiche Fähigkeit messen, jedoch mit unterschiedlichen Mittelwerten. Der Einsatz als Lernverlauf-Messinstrument erscheint somit mit separaten Normen je Form möglich. Die Paralleltest- und Retestreliabilität dieser 4 Formen ist unter Verwendung von Score 1 und 2 ausreichend hoch, nicht aber bei Score 3. In Studie 2 (SELV-D, n = 345, davon 150 6. Klasse) wurde nur Form 1 betrachtet, die unter Verwendung aller 3 Scores die Kriterien der diskriminanten und konvergenten Validität erfüllt. </jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Seifert, Susanne and Maitz, Katharina and Riedl, Sylvia and Neumaier, Arnold and Stoff, Ilona and Gasteiger-Klicpera, und Barbara}},
  issn         = {{0012-1924}},
  journal      = {{Diagnostica}},
  keywords     = {{Clinical Psychology}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{101--112}},
  publisher    = {{Hogrefe Publishing Group}},
  title        = {{{Screening zur Erfassung des Leseverständnisses in den           Klassen 6 – 7 (SELV 6 – 7)}}},
  doi          = {{10.1026/0012-1924/a000289}},
  volume       = {{68}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@article{37447,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p> Zusammenfassung. Instrumente zur Messung von Gesundheitskompetenz bei Jugendlichen basieren auf sehr heterogenen Definitionen und Konzepten. Zudem können sie grundsätzlich in subjektive (Selbsteinschätzungs–) und objektive (die Performanz messende) Verfahren unterteilt werden. In der vorliegenden Studie wurden 2 subjektive (eHEALS; Kurzform des HLS-EU-Q16) und ein objektives Messinstrument (Claim) von 471 Jugendlichen der 6. und 7. Klassenstufe (Durchschnittsalter 13.04 Jahre; 49 % Mädchen; 63 % Familiensprache Deutsch) bearbeitet und auf ihren wechselseitigen Zusammenhang, den Zusammenhang mit kognitiven und Lesefähigkeiten, sowie Unterschiede in Bezug auf Geschlecht und Familiensprache untersucht. Das objektive Verfahren korrelierte nicht mit den subjektiven Verfahren. Dies bestätigt die Annahme, dass sie aufgrund der Messperspektive unterschiedliche Indikatorenausprägungen von Gesundheitskompetenz erfassen. Korrelationen mit Lese- und kognitiven Fähigkeiten zeigten sich nur beim objektiven Instrument, wohingegen die Selbsteinschätzungsinstrumente diese Aspekte der Gesundheitskompetenz nicht abbilden. Unterschiede hinsichtlich des Geschlechts und der Familiensprache zeigten sich insbesondere beim objektiven Instrument, allerdings sind Antwortverzerrungen bei Selbsteinschätzungen möglich. Die spezifischen Vor- und Nachteile von subjektiven und objektiven Verfahren sollten bei der Instrumentenauswahl berücksichtigt werden. </jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Seifert, Susanne and Maitz, Katharina and Pendl, Dominik and Gasteiger-Klicpera, Barbara}},
  issn         = {{0012-1924}},
  journal      = {{Diagnostica}},
  keywords     = {{Clinical Psychology}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{197--208}},
  publisher    = {{Hogrefe Publishing Group}},
  title        = {{{Vergleich unterschiedlicher Instrumente zur Messung von Gesundheitskompetenz           im Zusammenhang mit Lesekompetenz und kognitiven Fähigkeiten von           Jugendlichen}}},
  doi          = {{10.1026/0012-1924/a000297}},
  volume       = {{68}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}