Evaluation of the factor structure of the child-reported parenting questionnaire in the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of parenting behaviours is important in child health and development research. This study evaluates three child-reported parenting behaviour scales (nurturance, rejection and monitoring) in the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). DATA AND METHODS: The sample consisted of two longitudinal cohorts (n = 1,164) who were interviewed at ages 10 to 11, 12 to 13, and 14 to 15. The factor structure of each scale was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis with weighted least squares estimation on polychoric correlation matrices. RESULTS: The 7-item NLSCY Parental Nurturance model appeared to be a good fit to the data for children aged 10 to 11 and 12 to 13, but not for those aged 14 to 15. The 7-item Parental Rejection model was not a good fit to the data across any of the three time points. The 5-item Parental Monitoring model was a good fit to the data across all three time points. Removal of one item from the nurturance and one item from the monitoring scale improved the fit to the data. INTERPRETATION: The revised models appeared to be useful in assessing parental nurturance and monitoring. The model for parental rejection was not confirmed for this sample of adolescents.
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 | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".