Psychometrics of a Self-Report Version of the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lahey and Waldman (2003 Lahey , B. B. , & Waldman , I. D. (2003). A developmental propensity model of the origins of conduct problems during childhood and adolescence. In B. B. Lahey , T. E. Moffitt , & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 76–117). New York : Guilford. [Google Scholar], 2005 Lahey , B. B. , & Waldman , I. D. ( 2005 ). A developmental model of the propensity to offend during childhood and adolescence . In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Advances in criminological theory, Volume 13 (pp. 15 – 50 ). Piscataway , NJ : Transaction . [Google Scholar]) proposed a model in which three dispositions—sympathetic response to others; negative emotional response to threat, frustration, and loss; and positive response to novelty and risk—transact with the environment to influence risk for conduct disorder (CD). To test this model, the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale (CADS) was developed to measure these dispositions using parent ratings of the child. Here we report psychometric evaluations of a parallel youth self-report version (CADS-Y). Exploratory factor analysis of CADS-Y items among 832 9- to 17-year-olds yielded a 3-factor structure that was consistent with the model and invariant across sex and informants. In 1,582 pairs of 9- to 17-year-old twins, confirmatory factor analyses supported the CADS-Y 3-factor model. Each CADS-Y dimension was associated with CD and related personality dimensions as predicted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".