Moderators of informant agreement in the assessment of adolescent psychopathology: Extension to a forensic sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A well-documented finding in developmental psychopathology research is that different informants often provide discrepant ratings of a youth's internalizing and externalizing problems. The current study examines youth- and parent-based moderators (i.e., youth age, gender, and IQ; type of psychopathology; offense category; psychopathic traits; parental education, income, and stress) of informant discrepancies in a sample of young offenders and compares the utility of youth and caregiver reports against relevant clinical outcomes. Results indicate that gender moderated the discrepancy between informant reports of somatic complaints, while parenting stress moderated the discrepancies across reports of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Variables unique to the forensic context (e.g., offense category) were found to moderate cross-informant discrepancies in reports of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Further, youth self-reports of internalizing symptoms predicted a clinician-generated diagnosis of a mood disorder, while caregiver reports of aggressive behaviors predicted the presence of an externalizing diagnosis. Results highlight the importance of assessing informant agreement in the context of forensic assessment and raise questions surrounding the optimal use of informant data in this setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".