MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092721353 · doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.2.188

Evaluating Parenting Capacity: Validity Problems With the MMPI-2, PAI, CAPI, and Ratings of Child Adjustment.

2005· article· en· W2092721353 on OpenAlex
Geoffrey D. Carr, Marlene M. Moretti, Benjamin J. H. Cue

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProfessional Psychology Research and Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSimon Fraser University
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practitioners who conduct assessments of parenting capacity for the courts are faced with the challenge of determining the extent to which positive self-presentation by parents distorts test findings. This study examined positive self-presentation bias on commonly used psychological tests in cases referred following removal of children from the home because of abuse or neglect. Substantial positive self-presentation bias was apparent on the measures examined, and parents who presented themselves positively on one test tended to do so on others. Intellectual functioning did not account for these findings. The results demonstrate the pervasive problem of positive self-presentation bias in compromising the validity of test results in this population. Recommendations for conducting clinical assessments with this population are offered, including direction for the use and interpretation of psychological tests.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.182 · 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