Oppositional Defiant Disorder Is Better Conceptualized as a Disorder of Emotional Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It has been reported that Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) can be differentiated into distinct subtypes associated with different outcomes in adulthood. We examined whether ODD is conceptually independent and coherent, and whether ODD and Conduct Disorder (CD) are expressions of the same core deficit. METHOD: The data come from a sample of 4,380 children for whom SNAP rating scales were available. Parallel analysis was performed on the eight-item ODD diagnostic items and on the SNAP-90 scale. These were factor analyzed and the components were correlated. RESULTS: ODD has one underlying factor, whereas the parent-rated SNAP has nine underlying factors. ODD items grouped together with emotional lability and irritability items, which did not group with CD. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the separation of ODD and CD but not ODD and emotion dysregulation. CONCLUSION: The expanded ODD factor more likely captures a disorder of emotion regulation, rather than a disruptive behavior disorder.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".