Do Parental Reports of Routinized and Compulsive-Like Behaviours Decline with Child’s Age?: A Brief Report of a Follow-Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><em>Background</em>: Routinized and compulsive-like behaviours are very common in young children; however, previous studies have shown inconsistent results as to the age such behaviours decline. Another issue concerns any association with later Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). <em>Method</em>:<strong> </strong>Related measures longitudinal design:<strong> </strong>We compared parent ratings of children over a 6 year period. The sample consisted of 109 children (aged 8 to 18 years, 62 males). Measures were of routinized and compulsive-like behaviours, OCD behaviours, worries and fears. <em>Results</em>: Routinized behaviours decreased significantly over the 6 year period, but not for children reported to have difficulties. OCD behaviours increased significantly with 31% of the sample having above threshold scores; however, only one child in the sample had an OCD diagnosis. There were significant correlations between CRI, OCD and fear and worry scores.<em> Conclusion</em>:<em> </em>We confirmed the view that anxiety reduction is one of the functions of routinized behaviours. A small number of children had high scores on routinized behaviours and the OCD measure, but there was only 1 diagnosis of OCD in the sample. This suggests that they may be part of the typical distribution of such behaviours.</p>
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".