Disregard for rules: the early development and predictors of a specific dimension of disruptive behavior disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disregard for rules, an important dimension of oppositional defiant and conduct disorders, is frequent during early childhood, but the development of its chronic form has not been studied during this key socialization period. This study aimed to describe the developmental trajectories of disregard for rules during early childhood and identify prenatal and postnatal predictors for a high trajectory. METHODS: Participants were involved in a longitudinal study of a birth cohort followed yearly from 5 to 74 months of age (N = 1,942). Prenatal and postnatal predictors were measured by parental report at the beginning of the study, and parents reported child disregard for rules at five time points from 29 to 74 months of age. RESULTS: Four groups of children followed distinct and stable trajectories of mother-rated disregard for rules: Very Low (approximately 9.1%), Low (56.9%), Moderate (29.7%) and Chronic (4.3%). As expected, male sex was a significant predictor of the chronic trajectory (OR = 1.76, CI = 1.09-2.83). Mothers' history of antisocial behavior (OR = 1.72, CI = 1.02-2.91), and postnatal depressive symptoms experienced by the mother (OR = 1.71, CI = 1.03-2.84) and the father (OR = 2.02, CI = 1.10-3.71) were also important independent predictors. However, contrary to expectations, children's difficult temperament and parenting at 5 months did not predict chronic disregard for rules beyond other risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: High disregard for rules is fairly stable during early childhood and is associated with risk factors identifiable before and shortly after birth which may be used for targeted prevention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".