Friendship Quality and Psychosocial Outcomes among Children with Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined differences in friendship quality between children with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and orthopedic injury (OI) and behavioral outcomes for children from both groups. Participants were 41 children with TBI and 43 children with OI (M age=10.4). Data were collected using peer- and teacher-reported measures of participants' social adjustment and parent-reported measures of children's post-injury behaviors. Participants and their mutually nominated best friends also completed a measure of the quality of their friendships. Children with TBI reported significantly more support and satisfaction in their friendships than children with OI. Children with TBI and their mutual best friend were more similar in their reports of friendship quality compared to children with OI and their mutual best friends. Additionally, for children with TBI who were rejected by peers, friendship support buffered against maladaptive psychosocial outcomes, and predicted skills related to social competence. Friendship satisfaction was related to higher teacher ratings of social skills for the TBI group only. Positive and supportive friendships play an important role for children with TBI, especially for those not accepted by peers. Such friendships may protect children with TBI who are rejected against maladaptive psychosocial outcomes, and promote skills related to social competence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".