MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557432633 · doi:10.1111/jir.12032

The role of personality in aggressive behaviour among individuals with intellectual disabilities

2013· article· en· W1557432633 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Stephane Chaïb, Anne G. Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalityPsychologyClinical psychologyIntellectual disabilityPopulationPersonality disordersAggressionBig Five personality traitsIntervention (counseling)Mental healthDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aggressive behaviour is associated with certain personality traits in both the general population and among individuals with mental health problems, but little attention has been paid to the relationship between aggressive behaviour and personality among individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). The aim of this study was to circumscribe personality profiles associated with aggressive behaviour among individuals with ID. METHOD: In this cross-sectional study of 296 adults with mild or moderate ID, information on mental health, personality and aggressive behaviour was gathered through structured interviews with the ID participants and their case manager, and a review of client files. RESULTS: The results of the Reiss Profile were submitted to hierarchical cluster analysis method. Subsequently, the distribution of aggressive behaviour, sociodemographic characteristics and clinical characteristics across personality profiles was analysed. The analyses yielded seven distinct personality profiles in relation to patterns of aggressive behaviour: Pacifists, Socials, Confidents, Altruists, Conformists, Emotionals and Asocials. CONCLUSION: The identification of distinct personality profiles sheds light on the risk factors for aggressive behaviour, and suggests new approaches to improving diagnostic and intervention strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability ResearchSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207