Comparison of parental socio-demographic factors in children and adolescents presenting with internalizing and externalizing disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to: (a) examine parental socio-demographic factors in children and adolescents referred to an outpatient service for internalizing and externalizing disorders, and (b) compare the demographic variables and diagnoses for the two diagnostic groups. METHODS: Parents of all children who were referred to the child and adolescent outpatient service were asked to participate. Following their informed consent, they completed a socio-demographic questionnaire for themselves and a Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) for their child. The CBCL scores and the diagnoses assigned by the psychiatrists were then recorded for each child. Diagnoses were classified as internalizing or externalizing based on the primary DSM-IV diagnosis assigned by the psychiatrists. Data for the two groups were compared for study variables using Pearson correlation, t-tests, one-way ANOVA and logistic regression. RESULTS: Children who had externalizing disorders tended to live with unemployed single parents who had lower education levels and lived in rented or assisted housing. Children with internalizing problems tended to live in owned homes with employed parents. There was no significant association between age or gender for either group. CONCLUSION: Previous literature has reported an association between low SES and more mental health problems; however, the relationship between different indicators of SES and diagnosis is not clear. Despite small numbers, our study revealed significant differences between the parental socio-demographic factors for externalizing compared with internalizing disorders.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".