Parenting behaviors and anxious self-talk in youth and parents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the association between parental anxious self-talk, parenting behaviors, and youth anxious self-talk. Parents and youth ages 7 to 14 (M = 10.17; N = 208; 53% male) seeking treatment for anxiety were evaluated for anxiety symptoms, youth anxious self-talk, parental anxious self-talk, and youth-perceived parenting behavior. Youth and parental anxious self-talk were assessed by both child and parent self-reports; youth-perceived parenting behaviors were assessed by youth-reports. Parenting behaviors included separate ratings of paternal and maternal (a) acceptance, (b) psychological control, and (c) firm/behavioral control. Correlational analyses revealed that maternal anxious self-talk, but not paternal anxious self-talk, was significantly associated with youth's anxious self-talk. Maternal anxious self-talk had an inverse association with youth-perceived maternal acceptance, but was not associated with youth-perceived maternal psychological or behavioral control. Higher youth-perceived maternal acceptance was significantly associated with lower youth anxious self-talk. Youth-perceived maternal acceptance partially mediated the association between mother's anxious self-talk and youth's anxious self-talk. However, this mediation effect disappeared when taking into account youth depressive symptoms. Results are discussed in relation to clinical implications and future directions in research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".