Translational research on parenting of adolescents: Linking theory to valid observation measures for family centered prevention and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental monitoring and family problem solving are key parenting practices targeted in evidence-based interventions targeting adolescents and families, yet the constructs have yet to be validated across ethnic groups. The study's objective was to promote translational research by evaluating convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the two constructs at age 16-17 years through the use of multiple observation indicators and methods and as a function of ethnic status. Videotaped parent-adolescent family interactions were coded for monitoring and problem solving in a sample of 714 European American (EA; 59.2 %) and African American (AA; 40.8 %) males (53.8 %) and females (46.2 %). Structural equation models established convergent and discriminant validity of parental monitoring and problem solving among parent, youth, and observation measures for AA and EA families. Low levels of parent monitoring was highly predictive of antisocial behavior in EA and in AA youths (p < 0.001) and moderately predicted future drug use (p < 0.001) for both groups at age 18-19. Poorer family problem solving was also moderately predictive of antisocial behavior (p < 0.001 for EA; p < 0.05 for AA) and drug use (p < 0.01 for EA; p < 0.05 for AA) at age 18-19. These findings suggest that interventions targeting parental monitoring and family problem solving can be reliably evaluated through various measurement methods and that such interventions are of value in efforts to prevent and treat problem behavior in adolescence. These family processes are readily observable in videotaped family interaction tasks in both EA and AA families.
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 | 0.037 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".