MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044056033 · doi:10.1037/cjbs2007021

Questionnaire d'évaluation du comportement de l'enfant: Version canadienne française du Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire.

2007· article· fr· W2044056033 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean‐Pascal Lemelin, George M. Tarabulsy, Marc A. Provost, Manon Fournier, Julie Robitaille, Isabelle Hémond

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyToddlerValidation testHumanitiesTest validityDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette etude vise a valider le Questionnaire d'evaluation du comportement de l'enfant (QECE), une version canadienne francaise du Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire (TBAQ; Goldsmith, 1996) qui est utilise afin d'evaluer cinq dimensions du temperament des enfants âges de 15 a 36 mois : niveau d'activite, tendance a exprimer du plaisir, crainte sociale, predisposition a la colere et interet/attention. Un echantillon de 122 enfants de 15 mois a ete evalue a l'aide du QECE. Cent six d'entre eux ont ete reevalues avec le QECE une deuxieme fois trois mois plus tard (a 18 mois). Cent deux des enfants avaient ete precedemment evalues a dix mois a l'aide du Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ, Bates, Freeland & Lounsbury, 1979), un questionnaire mesurant le temperament durant la premiere annee de vie. Les resultats demontrent que les echelles du QECE ont une coherence interne et une stabilite temporelle adequate. De plus, les resultats demontrent que les echelles du QECE possedent des proprietes discriminantes adequates et que le QECE possede une bonne validite convergente avec l'ICQ. Les proprietes psychometriques du QECE, sa facilite et rapi-dite d'administration et de cotation et sa capacite a fournir de l'information concernant plusieurs dimensions du temperament font de celui-ci un questionnaire tres interessant a utiliser dans la recherche sur le developpement des enfants.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.225 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207