Could we use parent report as a valid proxy of child report on anxiety, depression, and distress? A systematic investigation of father–mother–child triads in children successfully treated for leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic assessment of emotional distress is recommended in after care. Yet, it is unclear if parent report may be used as a proxy of child report. The aim of this study was to assess agreements and differences and explore possible moderators of disagreement between child and parent ratings. METHODS: Sixty-two young survivors treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (9-18 years) and both parents responded to the Beck Youth Inventory (anxiety and depression) and the distress rating scale on the child's status. Parents completed the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 on their own psychological status. Systematic analyses of agreement and differences were performed. RESULTS: Mother-child and father-child agreements were fair on anxiety, depression, and distress (median intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.37). Differences between parents and children were medium sized (median d = 0.55) with parents giving higher scores than their children on anxiety, depression, and distress. Mothers reported distress more frequently than fathers (39 vs. 17%) when children reported none. The child being female and lower parental income were associated with lower agreement in fathers when rating child distress. Higher levels of parental psychological symptoms were consistently associated with lower agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Parent-child differences when rating adolescent survivors' difficulties may be more important than previously thought. Parent report probably cannot be considered as a valid proxy of older child report on such internalized domains as anxiety, depression, or distress in the after-care clinic. Parents' report is also likely to be influenced by their own mood, a factor that should be corrected for when using their report.
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 | 0.074 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".