Identifying the irritability dimension of ODD: Application of a modified bifactor model across five large community samples of children.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of irritability, as measured among the symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), has dramatically come to the fore in recent years. New diagnostic categories rely on the distinct clinical utility of irritability, and models of psychopathology suggest it plays a key role in explaining developmental pathways within and between disorders into adulthood. However, only a few studies have tested multidimensional models of ODD, and the results have been conflicting. Further, consensus has not been reached regarding which symptoms best identify irritability. The present analyses use 5 large community data sets with 5 different measures of parent-reported ODD, comprising 16,280 youth in total, to help resolve these questions. Across the samples, ages ranged from 5 to 18, and included both boys and girls. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a modified bifactor model showed the best fit in each data set. The structure of the model included 2 correlated specific factors (irritability and oppositional behavior) in addition to a general ODD factor. In 4 models, the best fit was obtained using the items "being touchy," "angry," and "often losing temper" as indicators of irritability. Given the structure of the models and the generally high correlation between the specific dimensions, the results suggest that irritability may not be sufficiently distinct from oppositional behavior to support an entirely independent diagnosis. Rather, irritability may be better understood as a dimension of psychopathology that can be distinguished within ODD, and which may be related to particular forms of psychopathology apart from ODD.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it