Examining the validity of the adapted Alabama Parenting Questionnaire—Parent Global Report Version.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to comprehensively examine the validity of an adapted version of the parent global report form of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) with respect to its factor structure, relationships with demographic and response style covariates, and differential item functioning (DIF). The APQ was adapted by omitting the corporal punishment and the other discipline items. The sample consisted of 674 Canadian and United States families having a 9- to 12-year-old child and at least 1 parent figure who had received treatment within the past 5 years for alcohol problems or met criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence. The primary parent in each family completed the APQ. The 4-factor CFA model of the 4 published scales used and the 3-factor CFA model of those scales from prior research were rejected. Exploratory structural equation modeling was then used. The final 3-factor model combined the author-defined Involvement and Positive Parenting scales and retained the original Poor Monitoring/Supervision and Inconsistent Discipline scales. However, there were substantial numbers of moderate magnitude cross-loadings and large magnitude residual covariances. Differential item functioning (DIF) was observed for a number of APQ items. Controlling for DIF, response style and demographic variables were related significantly to the factors. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".