Moral reasoning and decision-making in adolescents who sustain traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Emerging evidence suggests that moral processes are disrupted by traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective of this study was to explore moral reasoning (MR) and decision-making in adolescents with TBI, and to examine potential associations with global manifestations of social competence.Design: This retrospective, cross-sectional research design compared MR and decision-making in adolescents with mild TBI (n = 20), moderate-severe TBI (n = 23) and typically developing controls (n = 93).Methods: Participants completed a visual task of socio-moral reasoning (SoMoral) and the Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents. Their parents completed questionnaires documenting their child’s behavior (Child Behavior Checklist) and adaptive functioning (Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Second Edition).Main results: Adolescents with both mild and moderate-severe TBI displayed more immature MR than typically developing peers. Participants with TBI also provided fewer socially adapted decisions. Closer inspection revealed that this difference was apparent only in the mild TBI group. No significant group differences were observed for empathy, behavior or adaptive skills.Conclusions: Sustaining TBI appears to affect adolescents’ ability to provide mature moral justifications when faced with moral dilemmas representative of everyday social conflicts. These difficulties do not appear to be associated with behavior problems, reduced empathy, or adaptive functioning.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".