MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092886147 · doi:10.1037/a0016600

Developing a measure of sluggish cognitive tempo for children: Content validity, factor structure, and reliability.

2009· article· en· W2092886147 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann Marie Penny, Daniel A. Waschbusch, Raymond M. Klein, Penny Corkum, Gail A. Eskes

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIWK Health CentreDalhousie University
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct validityContent validityReliability (semiconductor)CognitionTest validityScale (ratio)PsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyConstruct (python library)PopulationReplication (statistics)Criterion validityValidityPsychiatryStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) is a construct that some researchers believe may be extremely useful in understanding the inattentive subtype of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and may even help define a completely new disorder. However, the construct of SCT is as yet inadequately operationally or theoretically defined. The authors took the first steps toward developing an empirically supported measure of SCT in children. In Study 1, potential items to measure SCT were identified from a literature review, content validity of the items was evaluated by a group of experts, and a preliminary set of SCT items were selected. In Study 2, ratings completed by parents and teachers of 335 children (ages 4-13) were used to further develop and evaluate the SCT items by computing factor analyses, item-level analyses, reliability analyses, and preliminary validity analyses. The final SCT scale (14 items) produced a total scale score and 3 subscale scores: Slow, Sleepy, and Daydreamer. These scales were constructed with good content validity and were found to have strong reliability. Future directions include replication, extension into a clinical population, and further examination of validity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations235
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207