MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994474183 · doi:10.1177/1534508414560347

Factor Structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Canadian Elementary School Sample

2014· article· en· W1994474183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Madison Aitken, Rhonda Martinussen, Richard G. Wolfe, Rosemary Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment for Effective Intervention · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrengths and Difficulties QuestionnairePsychologyInternal consistencySample (material)Test validityReliability (semiconductor)Structural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyConsistency (knowledge bases)Test (biology)Mental healthPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a 25-item screening measure for emotional and behavioral problems in children and adolescents aged 4 to 16. Structural equation modeling was used to test the five-factor structure of teacher and parent ratings on the British version of the SDQ in a community sample of 501 Canadian children aged 6 to 9 years. The five-factor model fit the data well for both teacher and parent ratings. In addition, the SDQ demonstrated acceptable reliability based on internal consistency coefficients and inter-rater agreement. The findings provide preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the British version of the parent and teacher SDQ in a sample of early elementary school Canadian children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessment for Effective InterventionSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207