Parent and youth report of youth anxiety: evidence for measurement invariance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We characterized parent-youth disagreement in their report on the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED) and examined the equivalence of this measure across parent and youth report. METHODS: A clinically referred sample of 408 parent-youth dyads (M age youth = 14.33, SD = 1.89; 53.7% male; 50.0% Non-Hispanic White (NHW), 14.0% Hispanic, 29.7% African-American) completed the SCARED. We examined (a) differences between parents and youth in the total number of symptoms reported (difference scores) and in their ratings of specific symptoms (q correlations), (b) demographic factors associated with these indices, and (c) equivalence of the pattern and magnitude of factor loadings (i.e., configural and metric invariance), as well as item thresholds and residual variances, across informants. RESULTS: The mean difference score was -2.13 (SD = 14.44), with youth reporting higher levels of symptoms, and the mean q correlation was .32 (SD = .24). Difference scores were greater for African-American dyads than NHW pairs. We found complete configural, metric, and residual invariance, and partial threshold invariance. Differences in thresholds did not appear to reflect systematic differences between parent and youth report. Findings were comparable when analyses were conducted separately for NHW and ethnic minority families. CONCLUSION: Findings provide further evidence for the importance of considering youth report when evaluating anxiety in African-American families. The SCARED was invariant across informant reports, suggesting that it is appropriate to compare mean scores for these raters and that variability in parent and youth report is not attributable to their rating different constructs or using different thresholds to determine when symptoms are present.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".