View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Psychometric Properties of the School Kindness Scale in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the Philippines

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Psychometric Properties of the School Kindness Scale in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the Philippines
Language: English
Authors: Buenconsejo, Jet U., Pianpiano, Olivia I. P., Datu, Jesus Alfonso (ORCID 0000-0002-8790-1113)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Mar 2023 60(3):780-792.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Psychometrics, Measures (Individuals), Cross Cultural Studies, High School Students, Correlation, Gender Differences, Academic Achievement, Learner Engagement, Mathematics Achievement, Student Attitudes, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: China, Hong Kong, Philippines
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22793
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: Studies have shown that the School Kindness Scale (SKS) has adequate psychometric properties in different societies such as Canada, Turkey, and the Philippines. However, there is scarce evidence on the psychometric validity of this scale across multiple societies and educational contexts. This study explores the cross-national invariance of the SKS among high school students in the Philippines, Hong Kong, and mainland China. Results showed that the modified unidimensional model of school kindness with correlated error terms on item number 2 and 3 had the most optimal fit. There was evidence supporting partial invariance of the modified unidimensional model of school kindness across setting and year level, and full invariance across gender. Whereas school kindness also demonstrated positive correlations with perceived academic performance in Hong Kong and mainland China, this construct was linked to higher emotional and social engagement in math in all contexts.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1364785
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE4N4aLaM289duN3mp12UY1AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMvdrMIvp14Rve6iSAIBEICBm93fCwk3mLdiblmxVdwBaln2WZCMnKiXXFnXCZ7oyFaOTRlrWoQ5FQCNdoW3QV9pdt55cNSAQPf3OFTHZCY2ntGZWRul3JH0KOFAYk-S7vS_Sz6yxygtRFDC8TSYLWCJg7XWI9vIJNVnJu63ZXznhyQiKzB_4cc8l_tA5Yz1z-FwPBYco-PlWwpBXOboKyD1AoHUaeJV21v3eDVe
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161691412;pis01mar.23;2023Feb07.03:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161691412-1">Psychometric properties of the School Kindness Scale in Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines </title> <p>Studies have shown that the School Kindness Scale (SKS) has adequate psychometric properties in different societies such as Canada, Turkey, and the Philippines. However, there is scarce evidence on the psychometric validity of this scale across multiple societies and educational contexts. This study explores the cross‐national invariance of the SKS among high school students in the Philippines, Hong Kong, and mainland China. Results showed that the modified unidimensional model of school kindness with correlated error terms on item number 2 and 3 had the most optimal fit. There was evidence supporting partial invariance of the modified unidimensional model of school kindness across setting and year level, and full invariance across gender. Whereas school kindness also demonstrated positive correlations with perceived academic performance in Hong Kong and mainland China, this construct was linked to higher emotional and social engagement in math in all contexts.</p> <p>Practitioner points: Modifying items in the School Kindness Scale is needed to improve its psychometric validity and invariance in different settings.School kindness was linked to perceived academic performance in mainland China and Hong Kong.School kindness was related to emotional and social engagement in math in mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines.</p> <p>Keywords: adolescents; emotional engagement; perceived academic achievement; school kindness; social engagement</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Kindness has been conceptualized as positive behaviors, gestures, and emotions displayed toward another person, which aim to voluntarily help the other without any expectation of reciprocity or receiving external rewards (Baldwin & Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Knafo & Israel, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]). The expression of kind acts has been related to altruistic love, care, compassion, and doing good for others, recognizing that everyone needs empathy and attention (Peterson & Seligman, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]). Kindness has also been linked to increasing social connectedness and maintaining interpersonal relationships with others (Andersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]; Seppala et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]). Past investigations have indicated that expressions of kindness result in greater well‐being, higher levels of positive emotions, and lower levels of negative affect (Mongrain et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]; Pressman et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]; Shin & Lim, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is a growing body of research showing the beneficial impacts of kindness in the school context. Research has demonstrated that students who perceive kindness in their schools tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction and sense of school belonging (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]; Lee & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]) as well as greater academic self‐efficacy and academic engagement (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]; Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]). Although kindness is generally perceived as a positive and desirable behavior, it may be important to examine more domain‐specific forms of this character strength since it may be conceptualized differently by individuals depending on their developmental stages (e.g., children vs. adolescents) and contexts (e.g., home vs. school). Binfet et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]) have developed a five‐item School Kindness Scale (SKS) to assess how children and adolescents perceive the practice and encouragement of kind acts in school settings.</p> <p>While there is research supporting the applicability of the SKS among adolescents in Canada (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]), Turkey (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]), mainland China (Datu & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]), and the Philippines (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]), none of these investigations have simultaneously examined the factor structure of school kindness across multiple cultural contexts. Important socio‐contextual differences have been noted across developmental contexts that may influence people's attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors (Hofstede, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]). Additionally, although Yurdabakan and Uz Baş ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref20">38</reflink>]) have shown that the SKS' scores were invariance across gender based on differential item functioning values, to date, no study has investigated the configural (i.e., factor structure), metric (i.e., factor loadings), scalar (i.e., item intercepts), and strict (i.e., error covariances) measurement invariance of the SKS. Establishing measurement invariance is important given that school kindness tends to differ by gender and grade level (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>]). Finally, whereas school kindness has been associated with positive psychological well‐being outcomes such as life satisfaction and resilience (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]; Datu et al., in press; Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref23">38</reflink>]), there is sparse research examining how school kindness is linked to positive academic outcomes (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study, therefore, aims to generate evidence about the psychometric validity and measurement invariance (i.e., configural, metric, scalar, and strict) of the SKS for children and adolescents (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]) among high school students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. Although the three settings may be generally classified as collectivistic societies, these societies have notable socio‐contextual differences. Hofstede et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]) compared 70 countries, including mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines, and found specific differences on six cultural dimensions (i.e., power distance, collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty tolerance, long‐term orientation, and indulgence). Compared to mainland China and Hong Kong, there is greater power distance (i.e., beliefs about the unequal or hierarchical distribution of power in a society), emphasis on uncertainty tolerance (i.e., tolerance for ambiguous or uncertain events), and short‐term orientation (i.e., preservation of time‐honored traditions and customs) in the Philippines. Mainland China, on the other hand, scored higher on long‐term orientation (i.e., adapting customs and traditions based on the situation), collectivism (i.e., actions and decisions are made in consideration of the larger group instead of one's personal reasons), and masculinity (i.e., preference for masculine‐related traits such as achievement, competitions, and success). Hong Kong, being a special administrative region in China's, scored lower on power distance and restraint (i.e., controlling gratification of desires and impulses), average on long‐term orientation, and high on uncertainty tolerance (Hofstede et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]). In terms of their socioeconomic standing and gross domestic product growth, the World Bank ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]) has classified Hong Kong as a high‐income country, mainland China as an upper‐middle income country, and the Philippines as a lower‐middle income country.</p> <p>Given these socio‐cultural differences, it is important to examine the psychometric validity and measurement invariance of the SKS across mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. The present study can offer findings on how students with distinct socio‐contextual backgrounds perceive the promotion of kindness in their schools. Past studies have noted the importance of adolescents' developmental contexts in the promotion of prosocial behaviors and character strengths particularly kindness (Crone & Achterberg, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; Kinghorn et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>To address the scarcity of studies examining the criterion‐related validity of the school kindness constructs, we also examined the links of school kindness to perceived academic performance (PAP) and selected math engagement dimensions (i.e., emotional and social engagement; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]). There is reason to argue that school kindness may relate to non‐cognitive aspects of academic engagement as research (Martin & Rimm‐Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]) has emphasized the role that external support plays in shaping engagement outcomes. Whereas emotional engagement refers to the extent to which students feel positive emotions during academic activities, social engagement pertains to the degree to which they actively interact with other students and teachers when performing academic tasks (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Academic engagement in math was selected as the criterion‐related validity construct over other subject areas because math is foundational in many sciences, engineering, and technology disciplines (Martin & Rimm‐Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]). Math education typically focuses on teaching well‐defined concepts and procedures, which are then applied to content areas that address real‐world problems and issues (e.g., science and engineering; Boaler, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]; Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]). Math, therefore, performs a gate‐keeping role for students who want to pursue STEM‐related careers (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>]). In the recent Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results, students from various cities in mainland China (i.e., Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang; Scored 591) ranked first in terms of mathematics performance while Hong Kong participants (Scored 551) ranked fourth in 78 countries (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]). The Philippines (Scored 353), however, ranked second to last among all countries in terms of mathematics performance, where girls and socio‐economically advantaged students outperformed boys and those with low socioeconomic status (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref39">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-3">Conceptualization and consequences of school kindness</hd> <p>School kindness refers to students' perceptions of a positive school climate, characterized by the encouragement of prosocial behaviors and positive relationships in school contexts (Binfet & Passmore, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]; Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]). Binfet et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]) noted that students tend to perceive school kindness as both interpersonal (e.g., improving the lives of others or helping others) and intrapersonal actions (e.g., sense of selflessness and altruism). Studies have also discovered that students' kind behaviors are usually centered around the themes of instructing and tutoring others or helping them with schoolwork (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]). Actions are perceived as kind when the intention and motivations behind the act are considered genuine and completed to benefit someone else in adolescents (Binfet & Passmore, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]; Cotney & Banerjee, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>The unidimensional factor structure of school kindness has been validated among students in Canada (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>]), mainland China (Datu & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]), Turkey (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>]), and the Philippines (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]; Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>]). Past studies have provided insights into the criterion‐related validity of the SKS by assessing how its overall score was related to positive socio‐emotional outcomes. For example, Canadian students who perceive greater kindness in their schools reported higher levels of classroom supportiveness, optimism, happiness, prosocial and social goals, and life satisfaction (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>]). Further, students' perceived kindness was also found to be associated with teacher‐reported empathy, social skills, and peer acceptance (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>]). In another study involving middle school students in Turkey, school kindness was related to students' self‐reported school climate, resilience, and satisfaction with family, school, friends, and other interpersonal connections (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>]). Filipino high school students with high perceptions of school kindness tend to have higher academic engagement (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref54">13</reflink>]) and well‐being (Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref55">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Aside from its links to optimal psychosocial outcomes, perceptions of kindness have also been associated with increased positive academic functioning. For example, students who report greater school kindness tend to be more academically self‐efficacious (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>]) and engaged (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]). Perceptions of kindness in the university context positively predicted life satisfaction 3 and 6 months after among Chinese university students (Datu & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]). However, none of the previous investigations simultaneously examined its factor structure and measurement invariance (i.e., configural, metric, scalar, and strict) across multiple countries. Establishing its factorial validity and stability across countries is important as this could pave the way for more cross‐national and cross‐cultural investigations that aim to identify similarities and differences in school kindness as well as ways on how to promote this climate in their respective learning environments.</p> <p>Given the beneficial impacts of school kindness on students' psychological and academic well‐being as well as the salience of socio‐contextual factors in students' perception of kindness, the present investigation aims to examine the validity of the SKS among secondary school students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. Although past studies have examined the effects of school kindness in mainland China (Datu & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref59">12</reflink>]), Hong Kong (Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]; Lee & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref61">24</reflink>]), and the Philippines (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]; Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]), to date, no investigation has simultaneously examined the SKS (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]) across adolescents from different societies. To provide evidence regarding the criterion‐related validity of the SKS, we explore how school kindness relates to PAP as well as emotional and social engagement in math.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-4">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161691412-5">Participants</hd> <p>There were 1692 high school students (<emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 13.71; <emph>SD</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 1.03) who participated in the study. The sample comprised 804 students from mainland China, 546 students from the Philippines, and 342 students from Hong Kong who were selected via convenience sampling. Among the student participants, 56% are males, 48% were Year 2 secondary school students, 21% were enrolled as Year 3 secondary school students, 16% were enrolled as Year 1 secondary school students, and 15% were Year 4 secondary school students. This study was part of a larger project that examines longitudinal predictors of math and science engagement in the three contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161691412-7">School kindness</hd> <p>The 5‐item SKS developed by Binfet et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]) was used to measure students' perception of the frequency of kindness in their classroom and school (e.g., "Kindness happens regularly in my classroom") as well as the extent to which kindness is encouraged (e.g., "The adults in my school model kindness"). Participants rated the items using a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 = "<emph>disagree a lot</emph>" to 5 = "<emph>agree a lot</emph>." The reliability coefficients of the SKS using the overall and individual (i.e., Mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines) data sets are presented in Section 3.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-8">Academic engagement in math</hd> <p>The items in the emotional (<emph>n</emph> = 4) and social (<emph>n</emph> = 4) subscales in the short version (Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>]) of math academic engagement (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref67">36</reflink>]) were used to assess such dimensions of student engagement. Sample items include: "I enjoy learning new things about math" and "I try to understand other people's ideas in math class." Items were rated on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 = "<emph>strongly disagree</emph>" to 5 = "<emph>strongly agree</emph>." The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the emotional and social engagement subscales in this study were.85 and.67. Note that while the Cantonese and Mandarin versions of the SKS and math engagement subscales were used among students in Hong Kong and mainland China, their Filipino versions were used among students in the Philippines.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-9">Perceived academic performance</hd> <p>Students were asked to rate their current overall academic performance using a scale of 0–100, with lower values indicating poor academic performance and higher values indicating excellent academic performance. Single‐item instruments have been found to be valid in measuring globally understood constructs such as students' subjective academic performance and socioeconomic status (Leung & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref68">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-10">Procedures</hd> <p>Approval from the human research ethics committee of the authors' university was sought before gathering data. Invitation letters were sent to principals and school heads of participating schools. With their approval, personal assent and parental consent were sought from the student participants as well as their parents or legal guardians. Research assistants with the help of the students' classroom advisers administered a paper‐and‐pen survey to the participants. On average, students managed to answer the survey within 15 min. The current study is part of a larger research project which aims to explore the predictors of academic and mental health outcomes among secondary school students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtoses) and reliability coefficients (i.e., Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega) were computed using the 27th version of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using lavaan package (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]) in R (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]) with robust maximum likelihood estimation, robust standard errors, and a Satorra‐Bentler scaled chi‐square test statistic (<emph>SB χ2</emph>) was conducted to determine the adequacy of the unidimensional model of school kindness. Separate CFAs were conducted for the combined data set and individual data sets from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. In evaluating the models' goodness‐of‐fit, we relied on the values of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Specifically, models with CFI and TLI values above.90 (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref71">20</reflink>]) as well as SRMR and RMSEA values below.08 (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]) were indicative of good fit to the data.</p> <p>Multigroup CFAs using lavaan package (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]) in R (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>]) were also performed to determine the configural (i.e., based on factor structure), metric (i.e., based on factor loadings), scalar (i.e., based on item intercepts), and strict invariance (i.e., based on item residuals) of the unidimensional model of school kindness across setting (i.e., Mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines), gender (i.e., male and female), and year level (i.e., Years 1, 2, 3, and 4). Measurement invariance was examined using the following threshold changes: CFI < 0.010, SRMR < 0.030 (for configural invariance), SRMR < 0.010 (for metric, scalar, and strict invariance), and RMSEA < 0.015 (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]). Measurement invariance was inferred if there were no significant changes in these values. Finally, Pearson's <emph>r</emph> correlation analysis was conducted with school kindness, PAP, and selected math engagement dimensions using the 27th version of the SPSS was used to generate evidence regarding the criterion‐related validity of the SKS.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-12">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161691412-13">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>The descriptive statistics of the SKS' items, overall school kindness using the entire data set and the separate data sets from mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines are presented in Tables 1–4, respectively. Skewness and kurtosis values from all data sets show that school kindness is within the range of normality (i.e., ±3; Brown, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]). The Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega were also calculated to generate estimates of the SKS' reliability coefficients. Results show that school kindness has an acceptable internal consistency among the entire sample (α = .85; ω = .85) and subsamples from mainland China (α = .86; ω = .87), Hong Kong (α = .87; ω = .87), and the Philippines (α = .78; ω = .79).</p> <p>1 Table Descriptive statistics of the SKS' items in the overall sample and sub‐samples</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Overall sample</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Min.</th><th align="left">Max.</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Skewness</th><th align="left">Kurtosis</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. The adults in my school model kindness.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">1692</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.79</td><td align="left" char=".">1.083</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.601</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.250</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. Kindness happens regularly in my classroom.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">1692</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.78</td><td align="left" char=".">1.013</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.581</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.087</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. Kindness happens regularly in my school.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">1692</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.91</td><td align="left" char=".">0.956</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.736</td><td align="left" char=".">0.356</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. My teacher is kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">1692</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.19</td><td align="left" char=".">0.946</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.181</td><td align="left" char=".">1.167</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>5. At my school, I am encouraged to be kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">1692</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.37</td><td align="left" char=".">0.799</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.163</td><td align="left" char=".">1.075</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall school kindness</td><td align="left" char=".">1692</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.01</td><td align="left" char=".">0.758</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.562</td><td align="left" char=".">0.207</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's α</td><td align="left" char=".">.846</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">McDonald's ω</td><td align="left" char=".">.848</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Mainland China sub‐sample</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Min.</th><th align="left">Max.</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Skewness</th><th align="left">Kurtosis</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. The adults in my school model kindness.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">804</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.58</td><td align="left" char=".">1.111</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.471</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.353</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. Kindness happens regularly in my classroom.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">804</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.79</td><td align="left" char=".">1.019</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.661</td><td align="left" char=".">0.018</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. Kindness happens regularly in my school.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">804</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.98</td><td align="left" char=".">0.922</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.871</td><td align="left" char=".">0.832</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. My teacher is kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">804</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.01</td><td align="left" char=".">1.023</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.050</td><td align="left" char=".">0.811</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>5. At my school, I am encouraged to be kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">804</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.40</td><td align="left" char=".">0.727</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.200</td><td align="left" char=".">1.820</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall school kindness</td><td align="left" char=".">804</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.953</td><td align="left" char=".">0.780</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.567</td><td align="left" char=".">0.593</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's α</td><td align="left" char=".">.864</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">McDonald's ω</td><td align="left" char=".">.873</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Hong Kong sub‐sample</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Min.</th><th align="left">Max.</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Skewness</th><th align="left">Kurtosis</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. The adults in my school model kindness.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">342</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.69</td><td align="left" char=".">1.055</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.418</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.389</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. Kindness happens regularly in my classroom.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">342</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.53</td><td align="left" char=".">1.018</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.063</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.567</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. Kindness happens regularly in my school.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">342</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.65</td><td align="left" char=".">1.019</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.251</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.508</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. My teacher is kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">342</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.04</td><td align="left" char=".">0.936</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.594</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.372</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>5. At my school, I am encouraged to be kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">342</td><td align="left" char=".">2</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.11</td><td align="left" char=".">0.903</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.438</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.147</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall school kindness</td><td align="left" char=".">342</td><td align="left" char=".">1.40</td><td align="left" char=".">5.00</td><td align="left" char=".">3.802</td><td align="left" char=".">0.799</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.091</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.804</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's α</td><td align="left" char=".">.868</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">McDonald's ω</td><td align="left" char=".">.869</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Philippines sub‐sample</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Min.</th><th align="left">Max.</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Skewness</th><th align="left">Kurtosis</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. The adults in my school model kindness.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">546</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.15</td><td align="left" char=".">0.959</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.938</td><td align="left" char=".">0.352</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. Kindness happens regularly in my classroom.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">546</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.90</td><td align="left" char=".">0.977</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.825</td><td align="left" char=".">0.551</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. Kindness happens regularly in my school.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">546</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">3.96</td><td align="left" char=".">0.940</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.886</td><td align="left" char=".">0.780</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. My teacher is kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">546</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.56</td><td align="left" char=".">0.696</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.810</td><td align="left" char=".">4.013</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>5. At my school, I am encouraged to be kind.</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left" char=".">546</td><td align="left" char=".">1</td><td align="left" char=".">5</td><td align="left" char=".">4.48</td><td align="left" char=".">0.797</td><td align="left" char=".">−1.679</td><td align="left" char=".">2.988</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall school kindness</td><td align="left" char=".">546</td><td align="left" char=".">1.20</td><td align="left" char=".">5.00</td><td align="left" char=".">4.212</td><td align="left" char=".">0.644</td><td align="left" char=".">−0.776</td><td align="left" char=".">0.578</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's α</td><td align="left" char=".">.783</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">McDonald's ω</td><td align="left" char=".">.791</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0161691412-14">Confirmatory factor analysis</hd> <p>As shown in Table 2, results of the CFAs using the combined and individual data sets from mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines generated poor fit. A review of the modification indices (MI = 348.13) suggested the need to add an error covariance between the second (i.e., "Kindness happens regularly in my classroom") and third (i.e., "Kindness happens regularly in my school") items of the SKS. This error covariance was probably due to the similarity in the nature of both items that tap participants' perceptions of the frequency of kindness in school settings. Also, both items are similarly worded and arranged consecutively in the survey. Correlating the error terms of items 2 and 3 resulted in acceptable fit for the combined and individual data set from mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines, although the absolute RMSEA values of the combined (0.097) and Hong Kong (0.115) models are slightly above the suggested values of Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>2 Table Results of the confirmatory factor analyses of the SKS</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">SB χ<sup><italic>2</italic></sup><italic>(df)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">CFI</th><th align="left">TLI</th><th align="left">RMSEA</th><th align="left">90% CI</th><th align="left">SRMR</th><th align="left">AIC</th><th align="left">BIC</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Original Combined Model (n = 1692)</td><td align="char" char=".">183.687 (5)</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="left">0.899</td><td align="left">0.798</td><td align="left">0.208</td><td align="left">0.183–0.235</td><td align="left">0.055</td><td align="char" char=".">19,974.074</td><td align="char" char=".">20,055.579</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Modified Combined Model (n = 1692)</td><td align="char" char=".">43.484 (4)</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="left">0.983</td><td align="left">0.956</td><td align="left">0.097</td><td align="left">0.072–0.124</td><td align="left">0.023</td><td align="char" char=".">19,668.128</td><td align="char" char=".">19,755.067</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Original mainland China Model (n = 804)</td><td align="char" char=".">54.846 (5)</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="left">0.949</td><td align="left">0.899</td><td align="left">0.157</td><td align="left">0.121–0.196</td><td align="left">0.037</td><td align="char" char=".">9159.286</td><td align="char" char=".">9229.630</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Modified mainland China Model (n = 804)</td><td align="char" char=".">8.231 (4)</td><td align="char" char=".">.083</td><td align="left">0.996</td><td align="left">0.990</td><td align="left">0.050</td><td align="left">0.000–0.098</td><td align="left">0.015</td><td align="char" char=".">9067.883</td><td align="char" char=".">9142.917</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Original Hong Kong Model (n = 342)</td><td align="char" char=".">60.624 (5)</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="left">0.856</td><td align="left">0.712</td><td align="left">0.274</td><td align="left">0.215–0.338</td><td align="left">0.064</td><td align="char" char=".">4059.894</td><td align="char" char=".">4117.416</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Modified Hong Kong Model (n = 342)</td><td align="char" char=".">14.679 (4)</td><td align="char" char=".">.005</td><td align="left">0.980</td><td align="left">0.949</td><td align="left">0.115</td><td align="left">0.056–0.181</td><td align="left">0.027</td><td align="char" char=".">3946.414</td><td align="char" char=".">4007.771</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Original Philippines Model (n = 546)</td><td align="char" char=".">67.325 (4)</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="left">0.881</td><td align="left">0.762</td><td align="left">0.186</td><td align="left">0.148–0.227</td><td align="left">0.064</td><td align="char" char=".">6284.209</td><td align="char" char=".">6348.748</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Modified Philippines Model (n = 546)</td><td align="char" char=".">8.818 (4)</td><td align="char" char=".">.066</td><td align="left">0.993</td><td align="left">0.983</td><td align="left">0.050</td><td align="left">0.000–0.095</td><td align="left">0.021</td><td align="char" char=".">6194.180</td><td align="char" char=".">6263.022</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; CFI, comparative fit index; <emph>df</emph>, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SB χ<sups><emph>2</emph></sups>, Satorra–Bentler scaled chi‐square test statistic; SKS, School Kindness Scale; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis Index; 90% CI, 90% confidence interval.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-15">Measurement invariance</hd> <p>As shown in Table 3, the unidimensional model of school kindness exhibited configural invariance across setting and year level. This means that the unidimensional factor structure of SKS is comparable among students from different contexts (i.e., Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines) and year levels. This measurement model exhibited configural, metric (i.e., consistency factor loadings), scalar (i.e., consistency in intercepts), and strict (i.e., consistency in residuals) invariance across gender, indicating that the unidimensional model of this construct had comparable meaning across boys and girls.</p> <p>3 Table Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses on the unidimensional model of the SKS across setting, gender, and year level</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Model</th><th align="left">SB χ<sup><italic>2</italic></sup><italic>(df)</italic></th><th align="left">CFI</th><th align="left">RMSEA</th><th align="left">SRMR</th><th align="left">ΔCFI</th><th align="left">ΔRMSEA</th><th align="left">ΔSRMR</th><th align="left">Invariant?</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Overall Model</td><td align="char" char="(">43.484 (4)</td><td align="left">0.983</td><td align="left">0.097</td><td align="left">0.023</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Across setting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Configural Model</td><td align="char" char="(">32.088 (12)</td><td align="left">0.991</td><td align="left">0.068</td><td align="left">0.019</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">Yes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Metric Model</td><td align="char" char="(">112.121 (20)</td><td align="left">0.964</td><td align="left">0.108</td><td align="left">0.074</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.027</td><td align="char" char=".">0.040</td><td align="left">0.055</td><td align="left">No</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalar Model</td><td align="char" char="(">285.453 (28)</td><td align="left">0.913</td><td align="left">0.142</td><td align="left">0.095</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.051</td><td align="char" char=".">0.034</td><td align="left">0.021</td><td align="left">No</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strict Model</td><td align="char" char="(">299.281 (38)</td><td align="left">0.897</td><td align="left">0.132</td><td align="left">0.114</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.016</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.010</td><td align="left">0.019</td><td align="left">No</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Across gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Configural Model</td><td align="char" char="(">44.320 (8)</td><td align="left">0.984</td><td align="left">0.094</td><td align="left">0.022</td><td>–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">Yes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Metric Model</td><td align="char" char="(">55.225 (12)</td><td align="left">0.982</td><td align="left">0.081</td><td align="left">0.033</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.013</td><td align="left">0.011</td><td align="left">Yes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalar Model</td><td align="char" char="(">69.134 (16)</td><td align="left">0.979</td><td align="left">0.074</td><td align="left">0.035</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.003</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.007</td><td align="left">0.002</td><td align="left">Yes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strict Model</td><td align="char" char="(">66.975 (21)</td><td align="left">0.979</td><td align="left">0.065</td><td align="left">0.037</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.009</td><td align="left">0.002</td><td align="left">Yes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Across year level</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Configural Model</td><td align="char" char="(">41.460 (16)</td><td align="left">0.989</td><td align="left">0.076</td><td align="left">0.022</td><td>–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">Yes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Metric Model</td><td align="char" char="(">93.632 (28)</td><td align="left">0.974</td><td align="left">0.090</td><td align="left">0.056</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.015</td><td align="char" char=".">0.014</td><td align="left">0.034</td><td align="left">No</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalar Model</td><td align="char" char="(">209.567 (40)</td><td align="left">0.941</td><td align="left">0.112</td><td align="left">0.073</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.033</td><td align="char" char=".">0.022</td><td align="left">0.017</td><td align="left">No</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strict Model</td><td align="char" char="(">206.568 (55)</td><td align="left">0.933</td><td align="left">0.103</td><td align="left">0.090</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.008</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.009</td><td align="left">0.017</td><td align="left">No</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; <emph>df</emph>, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SB χ<emph>2</emph>, Satorra–Bentler scaled chi‐square test statistic; SKS, School Kindness Scale; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; ΔCFI, CFI change; ΔRMSEA, RMSEA change; ΔSRMR, SRMR change.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-16">Criterion‐related validity</hd> <p>The associations of school kindness with PAP and math engagement dimensions were also examined for the entire data set and separate data sets using Pearson's correlational analyses. Results showed that whereas school kindness was positively correlated with PAP in Hong Kong and mainland China, these constructs were not significantly linked to each other in the Philippines. School kindness was positively correlated with emotional and social engagement in math in all contexts. Table 4 reports the descriptive statistics and zero‐order correlational coefficients between school kindness and criterion variables.</p> <p>4 Table Descriptive statistics and correlational coefficients among School Kindness Scale (SKS), perceived academic performance (PAP), math emotional engagement (MEE), and math social engagement (MSE) in Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Mean and standard deviation</th><th align="left">Correlations</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><p>Hong Kong</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 342)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mainland China</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 804)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Philippines</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 546)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Hong Kong (upper)</p><p>Mainland China (lower)</p></th><th align="left">Philippines</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. SKS</td><td align="char" char=".">3.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.80</td><td align="char" char=".">3.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td><td align="char" char=".">4.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.90</td><td>–</td><td align="char" char=".">.210003</td><td align="char" char=".">.360003</td><td align="char" char=".">.340003</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. PAP</td><td align="char" char=".">56.55</td><td align="char" char=".">19.79</td><td align="char" char=".">65.25</td><td align="char" char=".">20.12</td><td align="char" char=".">89.19</td><td align="char" char=".">6.98</td><td>.150003</td><td>–</td><td align="char" char=".">.350003</td><td align="char" char=".">.310003</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. MEE</td><td align="char" char=".">3.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.73</td><td align="char" char=".">3.62</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64</td><td align="char" char=".">3.91</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">.500003</td><td align="char" char=".">.190003</td><td>–</td><td align="char" char=".">.790003</td><td align="char" char=".">.260003</td><td align="char" char=".">.080001</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. MSE</td><td align="char" char=".">3.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td><td align="char" char=".">3.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.66</td><td align="char" char=".">4.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">.470003</td><td align="char" char=".">.160003</td><td align="char" char=".">.710003</td><td>–</td><td align="char" char=".">.270003</td><td align="char" char=".">.130002</td><td align="char" char=".">.740002</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < .05;</item> <item>4 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01;</item> <item>5 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0161691412-17">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Studies have shown that the SKS had acceptable psychometric properties among primary and middle school students in Canada (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref78">4</reflink>]), middle school students in Turkey (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref79">38</reflink>]), and high school students in the Philippines (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]; Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref81">11</reflink>]). However, little is known regarding its measurement invariance in different cultural contexts. This study investigates the invariance of the SKS across contexts, gender, and year level among high school students across Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines.</p> <p>This study shows that the modified unidimensional model of school kindness constructs with correlated error variance in items 2 and 3 (i.e., "Kindness happens regularly in my classroom" and "Kindness happens regularly in my school") had better fit than the original measurement model, which confirms prior research findings (Datu et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref82">11</reflink>]; Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref83">38</reflink>]). A plausible reason that accounts for this finding is the overlapping nature of both items, which focused on assessing students' perceptions of kind acts in either classroom or school contexts. However, this investigation demonstrates the scale's limited invariance (i.e., configural invariance) across students in Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines. Similarly, there was partial invariance across year level, which suggests that the number of factors and pattern of loadings are comparable among students from diverse year levels. Given that these findings proffer limited evidence regarding the generalizability of the school kindness construct across contexts and year levels, caution should be observed in carrying out mean‐level comparisons among students with diverse cultural and developmental backgrounds.</p> <p>Corroborating previous research (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>]), this study reveals that the modified unidimensional model of school kindness had full invariance across gender. This result suggests that school kindness had comparable factor structure, factor loadings, item intercepts, and error covariances across boys and girls. Hence, the SKS can be used to explore gender differences in school kindness among high school students in selected non‐Western contexts (i.e., mainland China, Hong Kong, and the Philippines). This study extends existing literature through recruiting early adolescent samples from multiple societies to offer evidence regarding the generalizability of the SKS in students with diverse gender profiles.</p> <p>School kindness was associated with PAP in Hong Kong and mainland China and higher math engagement across Filipino, Hong Kong Chinese, and mainland Chinese adolescent samples. It is not surprising that school kindness was linked to higher emotional engagement as past research shows that school kindness was associated with higher overall engagement in middle (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]) and high school students (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]). In the same way, it is likely that school kindness was linked to higher likelihood of interacting actively with peers and teachers to learn math, given that past investigations have revealed that school kindness was linked to positive interpersonal constructs such as peer acceptance (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>]), school belongingness (Lee & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]), and satisfaction with interpersonal relations with family, school, and friends (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref89">38</reflink>]). Given the positive associations of school kindness with adaptive academic outcomes, teachers, school psychologists, and counselors may use design psychoeducational interventions and programs (e.g., Pressman et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref90">30</reflink>]) that reinforce kind practices in children, adolescents, teachers, and nonteaching staffs.</p> <p>Nonetheless, this study should be evaluated in light with its shortcomings. Given its correlational nature, it is impossible to draw causal conclusions between school kindness and academic outcomes. Future research can test the hypothesized associations of school kindness with PAP and math engagement via a cross‐temporal design. The results of this study are also limited to a convenience sample of secondary school students from Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines. Future investigations may include students from other collectivistic settings to further examine the cross‐cultural applicability of the SKS. The use of self‐reported measures of school‐kindness and criterion‐related variables may also inflate the likelihood of social desirability biases. Future research can address this limitation through using alternative approaches in assessing school kindness (e.g., peer‐report measure of school kindness). As the focus of this study was generating insights regarding the criterion‐related validity of the SKS, it is not possible to understand how school kindness can predict unique and additional variance in academic and social‐emotional learning outcomes above and beyond the effects of theoretically related constructs such as extraversion, agreeableness, and encouragement. Hence, future investigations are necessary to provide evidence on the incremental validity of the school kindness construct.</p> <p>This study contributes to existing school kindness literature in multiple ways. First, unlike prior studies (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]; Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref92">38</reflink>]) which relied on monocultural samples, this study recruited a sample of adolescents in Hong Kong, mainland China, and the Philippines to investigate the psychometric properties of the SKS. Second, it extends findings (Yurdabakan & Uz Baş, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]) on the construct comparability of school kindness through demonstrating the configural invariance of the modified unidimensional model of school kindness across settings and year levels. Given the limited evidence of measurement invariance across settings, future researchers are recommended to modify the SKS and evaluate its cross‐cultural generalizability in multiple contexts. Third, whereas past investigations have shown the links of school kindness to academic self‐efficacy (Binfet et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref94">4</reflink>]) and overall academic engagement (Datu & Park, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>]), this study demonstrates the associations of school kindness with higher levels of emotional and social engagement in math as well as PAP. Through examining the associations of school kindness with engagement in a specific subject area across Filipino and Chinese adolescents, this study proffers unique contribution to the existing literature about the criterion‐related validity of the SKS. We hope that our study can stimulate more investigations regarding the cross‐cultural generalizability of school kindness in adolescents from diverse sociocultural contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-18">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>This study was based on data funded by the Research Grant Council—Early Career Scheme (ECS Project no. 28611119) awarded to the first author. Note that this study was part of an ongoing longitudinal project, which aims to explore cross‐temporal associations of grit with key learning processes and outcomes in these three settings. The authors thank Prof. Nino Jose Mateo and Dr. Yang Lan Joy for their help in collecting data in the Philippines and mainland China, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-19">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0161691412-20">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supplementary information.</p> <ref id="AN0161691412-21"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen, S. M., Saribay, S. A., & Thorpe, J. S. (2008). Simple kindness can go a long way. Social Psychology, 39 (1), 59 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.39.1.59</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baldwin, C. P., & Baldwin, A. L. (1970). Children's judgments of kindness. Child Development, 41 (1), 29 – 47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Binfet, J. T., & Passmore, H. A. (2019). The who, what, and where of school kindness: Exploring students' perspectives. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 34 (1), 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573517732202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Binfet, J. T., Gadermann, A. M., & Schonert‐Reichl, K. A. (2016). Measuring kindness at school: Psychometric properties of a School Kindness Scale for children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 111 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref42" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Binfet, J. T., Willis‐Stewart, S., Lauze, A., Green, F. L. L., Draper, Z. A., & Calibaba, B. (2021). Understanding university students' conceptualizations and perceptions of kindness: A mixed‐methods study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46 (4), 441 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1967895</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref35" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boaler, J. (2015). The math‐class paradox: Mastering the subject has become less about learning and more about performance. The Atlantic. https://<ulink href="http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/math-class-performing/421710/">www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/math-class-performing/421710/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref76" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref75" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14 (3), 464 – 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cotney, J. L., & Banerjee, R. (2019). Adolescents' conceptualizations of kindness and its links with well‐being: A focus group study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36 (2), 599 – 617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517738584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crone, E. A., & Achterberg, M. (2021). Prosocial development in adolescence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 220 – 225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datu, J., Mateo, N. J., & Natale, S. (2022). The mental health benefits of kindness‐oriented schools: School kindness is associated with increased belongingness and well‐being in Filipino high school students. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01299-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datu, J. A. D., & Lin, X. (2021). The mental health benefits of kind university climate: Perception of kindness at university relates to longitudinal increases in well‐being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17, 1663 – 1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09981-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datu, J. A. D., & Park, N. (2019). Perceived school kindness and academic engagement: The mediational roles of achievement goal orientations. School Psychology International, 40 (5), 456 – 473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319854474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datu, J. A. D., Ping Wong, G. S., & Rubie‐Davies, C. (2021a). Can kindness promote media literacy skills, self‐esteem, and social self‐efficacy among selected female secondary school students? An intervention study. Computers and Education, 161, 104062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datu, J. A. D., Yang, L., & Mateo, N. J. (2021 b). Are gritty students academically engaged in Math and Science? School Psychology, 36 (3), 190 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self‐regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness‐based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51 (1), 44 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M.‐T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls' and boys' engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (2), 271 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1), 1– 26. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded (3rd ed.). McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.‐T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76 – 99). Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.‐T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut‐off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinghorn, W. A., Keyes, C. L. M., Parnell, H. E., Eagle, D. E., Biru, B. M., Amanya, C., Vann, V., Krishna Kaza, V. G., Tzudir, S., Saddo, Y. B., Whetten, K., & Proeschold‐Bell, R. J. (2019). Putting virtues in context: Engaging the VIA classification of character strengths in caregiving for orphans and vulnerable children across cultures. Journal of Positive Psychology, 14 (6), 845 – 853. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1579363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knafo, A., & Israel, S. (2012). Empathy, prosocial behaviour, and other aspects of kindness. In M. Zenter & R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of temperament (pp. 168 – 179). Guildford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. K. J., & Huang, J. (2021). The relations between students' sense of school belonging, perceptions of school kindness and character strength of kindness. Journal of School Psychology, 84, 95 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leung, S. O., & Xu, M. L. (2013). Single‐item measures for subjective academic performance, self‐esteem, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Social Service Research, 39 (4), 511 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.794757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, M., Shavelson, R. J., Kupermintz, H., & Ruiz‐Primo, M. A. (2002). On the relationship between mathematics and science achievement in the United States. In: D. F. Robitaille & A. E. Beaton (Eds.), Secondary Analysis of the TIMSS Data (pp. 233 – 249). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0‐306-47642-8_15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, D. P., & Rimm‐Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Do student self‐efficacy and teacher‐student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math? Journal of School Psychology, 53 (5), 359 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mongrain, M., Barnes, C., Barnhart, R., & Zalan, L. B. (2018). Acts of kindness reduce depression in individuals low on agreeableness. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4 (3), 323 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. APA Press and Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pressman, S. D., Kraft, T. L., & Cross, M. P. (2015). It's good to do good and receive good: The impact of a 'pay it forward' style kindness intervention on giver and receiver well‐being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10 (4), 293 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.965269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1 – 36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seppala, E., Rossomando, T., & James, R. D. (2013). Social connection and compassion: Important predictors of health and well‐being. Social Research, 80 (2), 411 – 430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, N. Y., & Lim, Y. J. (2019). Contribution of self‐compassion to positive mental health among Korean university students. International Journal of Psychology, 54 (6), 800 – 806. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Bank. (2022). World Bank Open Data. Free and open access to global development data. https://data.worldbank.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yurdabakan, İ., & Uz Baş, A. (2019). Factor structure, measurement invariance, criterion validity, and reliability of the school kindness scale: Turkish middle school sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37 (8), 1002 – 1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918803500</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jet U. Buenconsejo; Olivia I. P. Pianpiano and Jesus Alfonso Datu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1364785
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Psychometric Properties of the School Kindness Scale in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the Philippines
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Buenconsejo%2C+Jet+U%2E%22">Buenconsejo, Jet U.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pianpiano%2C+Olivia+I%2E+P%2E%22">Pianpiano, Olivia I. P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Datu%2C+Jesus+Alfonso%22">Datu, Jesus Alfonso</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8790-1113">0000-0002-8790-1113</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Mar 2023 60(3):780-792.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cross+Cultural+Studies%22">Cross Cultural Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Achievement%22">Mathematics Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hong+Kong%22">Hong Kong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philippines%22">Philippines</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22793
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Studies have shown that the School Kindness Scale (SKS) has adequate psychometric properties in different societies such as Canada, Turkey, and the Philippines. However, there is scarce evidence on the psychometric validity of this scale across multiple societies and educational contexts. This study explores the cross-national invariance of the SKS among high school students in the Philippines, Hong Kong, and mainland China. Results showed that the modified unidimensional model of school kindness with correlated error terms on item number 2 and 3 had the most optimal fit. There was evidence supporting partial invariance of the modified unidimensional model of school kindness across setting and year level, and full invariance across gender. Whereas school kindness also demonstrated positive correlations with perceived academic performance in Hong Kong and mainland China, this construct was linked to higher emotional and social engagement in math in all contexts.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1364785
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1364785
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22793
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 780
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cross Cultural Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hong Kong
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Philippines
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Psychometric Properties of the School Kindness Scale in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the Philippines
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Buenconsejo, Jet U.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pianpiano, Olivia I. P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Datu, Jesus Alfonso
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1