MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002404854 · doi:10.1177/1073191106289908

Development and Validation of the Conduct Disorder Rating Scale

2007· article· en· W2002404854 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRating scaleConduct disorderObservational studyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several rating scales for measuring externalizing problems in children are inconsistent with widely used diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder (CD). The Conduct Disorder Rating Scale (CDRS) was developed to provide valid measures of CD in children age 5 to 12 years. In Study 1, the CDRS was evaluated in a community sample of 1,554 children. Parents and teachers showed modest agreement in their ratings and children's age and gender differences were consistent with epidemiological trends. In Study 2, the CDRS was evaluated in a clinical sample of 80 children who were assessed for a summer treatment program. The parent version of the CDRS showed 78.8% accuracy in identifying CD against a diagnostic interview, and both parent and teacher versions of the CDRS were significantly associated with observations of antisocial behavior. Although further research with this new tool is warranted, results indicated that the CDRS is well suited to observational and clinical studies of CD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.312 · 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