Higher order language competence and adolescent mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinic and community-based epidemiological studies have shown an association between child psychopathology and language impairment. The demands on language for social and academic adjustment shift dramatically during adolescence and the ability to understand the nonliteral meaning in language represented by higher order language becomes essential. OBJECTIVES: : This article reports on the association between difficulties in higher order language skills, reading, cognition, and social-emotional adjustment in adolescents. METHOD: : 144 clinic-referred and 186 comparison youth aged 12-18 years were administered a battery of standardized tests of intelligence, working memory, structural and higher order language, and reading achievement. Parent ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist were used as a measure of severity of social-emotional problems. RESULTS: : Clinic-referred youth scored significantly lower than comparison youth on measures of structural and higher order language, working memory, and reading. Of the clinic-referred youth, 45% had some type of higher order language impairment, whereas this was the case for 15% of youth in the comparison group. Lower levels of nonverbal ability and working memory as well as lower level of mothers' education were associated with greater risk of having higher order language impairment. CONCLUSIONS: : Findings have implications for practitioners' seeking to understand and treat adolescents since therapeutic techniques rely on skills where higher order language is at play including the ability to discuss opinions flexibly and to weigh interpretations. Therapists must be aware that there are areas that have potential for miscommunication with some adolescents and where inaccurate inferences may be made about their behavior. Furthermore, educators must consider resources for youth who may increasingly struggle in high school because of such difficulties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".