A Preliminary Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Coparenting Questionnaire and the Diabetes-Specific Coparenting Questionnaire in Families of Children with Type I Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the structure and psychometric properties of a general childrearing [Coparenting Questionnaire (CQ)] and an adapted Diabetes-Specific Coparenting Questionnaire (DCQ) and compare general and diabetes-specific coparenting among two-parent families caring for a child with type I diabetes. METHODS: Mothers and fathers of children (N=61) aged 8-12 years with type I diabetes completed self-report measures of marital functioning, parenting, and coparenting, including the CQ and DCQ. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analyses favored the hypothesized 3-factor model for mothers and fathers for the CQ and DCQ. The internal consistencies and convergent validities of the CQ and DCQ were adequate. Coparenting conflict and triangulation were significantly higher for general child management than diabetes-specific issues. CONCLUSIONS: The CQ and DCQ represent two assessments that differentiate couples' cooperation, conflict, and triangulation coparenting behaviors for general and diabetes-specific issues, and may potentially help inform family-based interventions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".