Evidence-based Assessment in Pediatric Psychology: Family Measures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of the evidence base of family measures relevant to pediatric psychology. METHOD: Twenty-nine family measures were selected based upon endorsement by Division 54 listserv members, expert judgment, and literature review. Spanning observational and self-report methods, the measures fell into three broad assessment categories: Family functioning, Dyadic family relationships, and Family functioning in the context of childhood chronic health conditions. Measures were categorized as: "Well-established", "Approaching well-established", or "Promising." RESULTS: Nineteen measures met "well-established" criteria and the remaining ten were "approaching well-established." "Well-established" measures were documented for each of the broad assessment categories named above. CONCLUSIONS: Many measures deemed "well-established" in the general population are proving to be reliable and useful in pediatric samples. More evidence of the validity of family measures is needed in this context. This review should prove helpful to clinicians and researchers as they strive to make evidence-based decisions regarding family measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it