Higher- and lower-order factor analyses of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire in early and middle childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Children's Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994), a 195-item parent-report questionnaire, is one of the most widely used measures of child temperament, with previous analyses of its scales suggesting that 3 broad factors account for the overarching structure of child temperament (Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001). However, there are no published item-level factor analyses of the CBQ, meaning that it is currently unclear whether items clearly load onto CBQ scales as proposed by its developers. Additionally, although the CBQ is intended to cover a broad window of development (i.e., ages 3-7), little is known about whether the structure of the CBQ differs depending on child age. The present study used a bottom-up approach to examine the lower- and higher-order structure of the CBQ in a large community sample of children at ages 3 (N = 944) and 5/6 (N = 853). Item-level exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) identified 88 items at age 3 and 87 items at age 5/6 suitable (i.e., with loadings ≥.40) for constructing lower-order factors. Of the lower-order factors derived at ages 3 and 5/6, fewer than half resembled original CBQ scales (Rothbart et al., 1994, 2001). Higher-order EFAs of the lower-order factors suggested that a 4-factor structure was the best fit at both ages 3 and 5/6. Thus, results indicate that a substantial number of CBQ items do not load well on a lower-order factor and that more than 3 factors are needed to account for its higher-order structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".