Paternal depression and child externalizing behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is a consensus that maternal depression is strongly related to child externalizing behaviors, research on the association between paternal depression and child externalizing behaviors is mixed. Some research shows that paternal depressive symptoms are positively associated with symptoms of externalizing behaviors, including oppositional-defiant behavior, conduct problems, and overall externalizing behavior, while other studies failed to find an association, or demonstrated a weak or negative association. Given that the most recent meta-analysis on paternal depression and child externalizing behaviors is outdated, an updated meta-analysis is necessary. The present meta-analysis consisted of 52 published and unpublished articles that included a quantitative comparison between paternal depression and child externalizing behaviors. There was a small relationship between symptoms of paternal depression and symptoms of child externalizing behaviors (r = .15; 95% confident interval [.13, .18]; k = 49). Child gender was the only statistically significant moderator, with studies with a larger proportion of boys showing a larger effect (Q = 4.30, p = .038, k = 40); however, one of the articles was identified as an outlier. This moderator was no longer significant after the outlier was removed. Overall, the results suggest that clinicians working with families of fathers with depression should be cognizant of possible co-occurring child externalizing behaviors in the family. Directions for future research and other clinical implications are provided based on the findings of the current study. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".