Validation of the ‘How I Think Questionnaire’ in a Population of French‐speaking Adolescents with Externalizing Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'How I Think Questionnaire' (HIT) is used to measure self-serving cognitive distortions among delinquents. Previously validated on Americans, this instrument was translated, adapted and validated for French-speaking teens. To assess convergent and discriminant validity, 336 adolescents with externalizing behaviors in Québec (Canada) completed the HIT, the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRD), and the Auto-aggression Questionnaire. There were 165 boys and 171 girls with M(age) = 16.4 years (SD = 0.5) who received services under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (n = 145) or the Youth Protection Act (n = 191). HIT and SRD total scores were correlated (0.51, p < 0.01). On the HIT, past suicidal attempting delinquents were not significantly different than non-suicide attempting delinquents; also delinquents living in closed detention facilities had more self-serving cognitive distortions than delinquents living in open facilities or under probation in the community. This French-language version of the HIT is a reliable and valid measure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".