Social Perspective Taking and Empathy in Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) show sociobehavioral impairments; however, the social cognitive profile contributing to these impairments is poorly understood. This study compared social perspective taking and empathy in children with FASD versus typically developing controls (TDC). Thirty-seven children with FASD and 21 TDC participated. Measures included parent-rated CBCL and SSIS, and NEPSY-II Theory of Mind, Test of Social Cognition and Index of Empathy. Parents rated the FASD group higher than TDC on indices of behavior problems and lower on indices of social skills and empathy. Children with FASD scored significantly below TDC on tasks requiring complex social cognition. The majority of correlations between social cognition and parent-ratings were not significant in FASD and TDC, with the exception of a negative correlation between self-reported empathy and parent-rated behavior difficulties in TDC. FASD subgroup analyses revealed lower theory of mind and empathy scores among children with ARND than pFAS/FAS. With regard to sex, males with FASD were rated as having more behavior difficulties than females, whereas TDC females obtained higher empathy ratings than males. In both groups, females scored higher on theory of mind and empathy indices. On theory of mind tasks, older children with FASD performed below younger, whereas younger TDC children performed more poorly than older. Children with FASD show reduced functioning on indices of sociobehavioral and social cognition, and the effects are influenced by sex and age. These findings provide insight into the clinical and social profile of children with FASD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".