Treatment Outcome of Adolescent Inpatients With Early‐Onset and Adolescent‐Onset Disruptive Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Unlike adolescents with adolescent-onset (AO) disruptive behavior, adolescents with early-onset (EO) disruptive behavior may not benefit from treatment. METHOD: Using Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) ratings at admission and discharge of adolescent inpatients with EO (n = 85) and AO (n = 60) disruptive behavior treatment outcome was determined by (a) a change in mean scores and (b) the Reliable Change Index. For a subgroup, ratings on the Satisfaction Questionnaire Residential Youth Care for Parents (n = 83) were used to verify the treatment outcome. RESULTS: Inpatients with EO disruptive behavior had a higher risk of dropout (44.4%) from treatment than the AO group (24.7%). Among the treatment completers, both onset groups reported improvements on the SCL-90-R, with 26.9% recovering and 31.7% improving. Inpatients who reported improvement were mostly rated as improved by their parents (r = .33). CONCLUSION: As EO inpatients are more likely to drop out, interventions should aim at motivating youngsters to continue treatment, particularly given the poor outcome in this group. Treatment may benefit both groups because those EO youths who stayed in treatment improved to the same extent as AO inpatients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".