MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089254082 · doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9154-8

The use of the macCAT-CA with adolescents: An item response theory investigation of age-related measurement bias.

2008· article· en· W2089254082 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi L. Viljoen, Kathleen L. Slaney, Thomas Grisso

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Human Behavior · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyItem response theoryResponse biasCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the application of the MacCAT-CA to juveniles, questions been raised regarding the appropriateness of this tool for adolescents. The current study tested for age-related measurement bias using data from the MacArthur Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Study (n = 1393). Five of the MacCAT-CA items showed age-related measurement bias (i.e., DIF) for adolescents aged 11-15, and three items showed DIF for adolescents aged 16-17. Several items (e.g., understanding of juries) were more difficult for adolescents than adults matched at the same latent level of capacity, suggesting that these items might underestimate adolescents' legal capacities. Contrary to expectations, there was little evidence of age-related measurement bias on the Appreciation scale. The use of the MacCAT-CA in research and clinical settings is discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw and Human BehaviorSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207