Update on the <scp>C</scp>hild's <scp>C</scp>hallenging <scp>B</scp>ehaviour <scp>S</scp>cale following evaluation using <scp>R</scp>asch analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Child's Challenging Behaviour Scale (CCBS) was designed to measure a mother's rating of her child's challenging behaviours. The CCBS was initially developed for mothers of school-aged children with developmental disability and has previously been shown to have good psychometric properties using classical test theory techniques. The aim of this study was to use Rasch analysis to fully evaluate all aspects of the scale, including response format, item fit, dimensionality and targeting. METHODS: The sample consisted of 152 mothers of a school-aged child (aged 5-18 years) with a disability. Mothers were recruited via websites and mail-out newsletters through not-for-profit organizations that supported families with disabilities. Respondents completed a survey which included the 11 items of the CCBS. Rasch analysis was conducted on these responses using the RUMM2030 package. RESULTS: Rasch analysis of the CCBS revealed serious threshold disordering for nine of the 11 items, suggesting problems with the 5-point response format used for the scale. The neutral midpoint of the response format was subsequently removed to create a 4-point scale. High levels of local dependency were detected among two pairs of items, resulting in the removal of two items (item 7 and item 1). The final nine-item version of the scale (CCBS Version 2) was unidimensional, well targeted, showed good fit to the Rasch model, and strong internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve fit to the Rasch model it was necessary to make two modifications to the CCBS scale. The resulting nine-item scale with a 4-point response format showed excellent psychometric properties, supporting its internal validity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".