Rison group was adequate to detect a between group effect difference of. 47 or larger; when was at. 05 and power set at. 8 ( = .2).Data AnalysisAnalyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 20) and Statistical Analysis System (SAS Version 9.2) software packages. Using the estimation maximization (EM) algorithm and Little’s chi-square statistic, the data were found to be missing completely at random, with the probability level set at 0.05 [79,80]. Standard guidelinesPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0123353 April 15,3 /Table 1. Overview of covariates and student personal factors considered for inclusion in the school belongingness model.Instrument/ main source Purpose Rater No of items or domains and meaning of total score Psychometric properties (if needed– addition references to substantiate psychometrics if available)FactorCovariatesAge Gender Presence/ absence of disability and type of disability Drawn from the Indicators of Social and Family Functioning Instrument Version-1 (ISAFF) [122] and Imatinib (Mesylate) biological activity Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys Demographic profile of the sample to match the data to normative data Parent/ Guardian 6-items Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents [123]. Domains: academic competence; athletic competence; peer acceptance competence, physical appearance competence Measures student perceived competence in various domains of functioning. Student 5-domainsHigher score = higher competenceStudent personal factorsPerceived CompetenceCronbach’s ranges from. 78 to.90 in populations of students with learning disability and behavioural disorders [123]. Considerate convergent, discriminant, and construct validity substantiated in equivalent US and Australian samples [124?26]. Discriminant validity among secondary school typically developing students, students with learning disability and behavioural disorders has been substantiated previously [127]. Cronbach’s ranges from. 50 (reference to others) to. 66 (non-productive coping). Testretest reliabilities range from. 44 to. 84 (Mean r = .69) [128]. Validated in Australian samples [128]. Cronbach’s ranges from. 53 to.81. Adequate content, construct validity and test-reliability substantiated in cross-cultural studies [25,26,130?32]PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0123353 April 15,Short form of the Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS) [128]. 3 coping styles: non-productive, problem solving, and reference to others. Measures the usage and helpfulness of coping strategies in general and specific situations. Assesses information on the goals students adopt for schooling Student 8-domains. Higher score = higher related motivation Student 3-coping styles: higher score = better coping style. Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) [129,130]. Domains: Task goals: (Mastery) task and effort motivation, Ego goals (Performance): competition and social-power motivation, Social solidarity goals: affiliation and social concern motivation, Extrinsic goals praise and token Vercirnon side effects reward. Personal expectations. Perception of teachers parent/guardian expectations of schooling [133]. Student Assesses students expectations for schooling and their perception of their parents’ and teacher’s expectation. Brief screener of children and adolescents’ behaviours, emotions and relationships. Parent/ Guardian 3-items Cronbach’s is. 91. [133]. Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [27,40]. Domains: emotional, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and peer r.Rison group was adequate to detect a between group effect difference of. 47 or larger; when was at. 05 and power set at. 8 ( = .2).Data AnalysisAnalyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 20) and Statistical Analysis System (SAS Version 9.2) software packages. Using the estimation maximization (EM) algorithm and Little’s chi-square statistic, the data were found to be missing completely at random, with the probability level set at 0.05 [79,80]. Standard guidelinesPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0123353 April 15,3 /Table 1. Overview of covariates and student personal factors considered for inclusion in the school belongingness model.Instrument/ main source Purpose Rater No of items or domains and meaning of total score Psychometric properties (if needed– addition references to substantiate psychometrics if available)FactorCovariatesAge Gender Presence/ absence of disability and type of disability Drawn from the Indicators of Social and Family Functioning Instrument Version-1 (ISAFF) [122] and Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys Demographic profile of the sample to match the data to normative data Parent/ Guardian 6-items Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents [123]. Domains: academic competence; athletic competence; peer acceptance competence, physical appearance competence Measures student perceived competence in various domains of functioning. Student 5-domainsHigher score = higher competenceStudent personal factorsPerceived CompetenceCronbach’s ranges from. 78 to.90 in populations of students with learning disability and behavioural disorders [123]. Considerate convergent, discriminant, and construct validity substantiated in equivalent US and Australian samples [124?26]. Discriminant validity among secondary school typically developing students, students with learning disability and behavioural disorders has been substantiated previously [127]. Cronbach’s ranges from. 50 (reference to others) to. 66 (non-productive coping). Testretest reliabilities range from. 44 to. 84 (Mean r = .69) [128]. Validated in Australian samples [128]. Cronbach’s ranges from. 53 to.81. Adequate content, construct validity and test-reliability substantiated in cross-cultural studies [25,26,130?32]PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0123353 April 15,Short form of the Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS) [128]. 3 coping styles: non-productive, problem solving, and reference to others. Measures the usage and helpfulness of coping strategies in general and specific situations. Assesses information on the goals students adopt for schooling Student 8-domains. Higher score = higher related motivation Student 3-coping styles: higher score = better coping style. Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) [129,130]. Domains: Task goals: (Mastery) task and effort motivation, Ego goals (Performance): competition and social-power motivation, Social solidarity goals: affiliation and social concern motivation, Extrinsic goals praise and token reward. Personal expectations. Perception of teachers parent/guardian expectations of schooling [133]. Student Assesses students expectations for schooling and their perception of their parents’ and teacher’s expectation. Brief screener of children and adolescents’ behaviours, emotions and relationships. Parent/ Guardian 3-items Cronbach’s is. 91. [133]. Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [27,40]. Domains: emotional, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and peer r.
