MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605516070 · doi:10.1037/abn0000267

Time-varying and time-invariant dimensions of depression in children and adolescents: Implications for cross-informant agreement.

2017· article· en· W2605516070 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Cole, Joan M. Martin, Jane M. Tram, Rachel L. Zelkowitz, Elizabeth A. Nick, Jason D. Rights

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsycINFOLongitudinal studyDepression (economics)Context (archaeology)Longitudinal dataClinical psychologyStatisticsDemographyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The longitudinal structure of depression in children and adolescents was examined by applying a Trait-State-Occasion structural equation model to 4 waves of self, teacher, peer, and parent reports in 2 age groups (9 to 13 and 13 to 16 years old). Analyses revealed that the depression latent variable consisted of 2 longitudinal factors: a time-invariant dimension that was completely stable over time and a time-varying dimension that was not perfectly stable over time. Different sources of information were differentially sensitive to these 2 dimensions. Among adolescents, self- and parent reports better reflected the time-invariant aspects. For children and adolescents, peer and teacher reports better reflected the time-varying aspects. Relatively high cross-informant agreement emerged for the time-invariant dimension in both children and adolescents. Cross-informant agreement for the time-varying dimension was high for adolescents but very low for children. Implications emerge for theoretical models of depression and for its measurement, especially when attempting to predict changes in depression in the context of longitudinal studies. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207