An observational measure of children's behavioural style: Evidence supporting a multi‐method approach to studying temperament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study demonstrates the potential utility of the Behavioural Style Observational System (BSOS) as a new observational measure of children's behavioural style. The BSOS is an objective, short and easy to use measure that can be readily adapted to a variety of home and laboratory situations. In the present study, 160 mother–child dyads from the Concordia Longitudinal Risk Project (CLRP) were observed during an 11‐min behavioural sample. Videotaped interactions were coded using the BSOS for children's mood, activity level, vocal reactivity, approach to toys, mood consistency and adaptability. Comparisons between the BSOS observational ratings and mothers' ratings of the child on the EAS Temperament Survey (EAS) provided support for modest congruence between these two measurement systems, and revealed a differential predictive pattern of children's functioning. Specifically, the observation‐based BSOS predicted children's cognitive performance and adaptive behaviour during testing, whereas the mother‐rated EAS predicted maternal ratings of children's internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems. Both measures were found to independently predict mothers' ratings of parenting stress. Overall, the findings imply that neither observational measures nor maternal ratings alone are sufficient to understand children's behavioural style, and that comprehensive evaluations of children's temperament should optimally include both types of measures. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".