Development of inhibitory control during childhood and its relations to early temperament and later social anxiety: unique insights provided by latent growth modeling and signal detection theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with the temperament of behavioral inhibition (BI) face increased risk for social anxiety. However, not all children with BI develop anxiety symptoms. Inhibitory control (IC) has been suggested as a moderator of the pathway between BI and social anxiety. This study uses longitudinal data to characterize development of IC and tests the hypothesis that IC moderates associations between early BI and later social anxiety symptoms. METHODS: Children completed a Go/Nogo task at ages 5, 7, and 10 years as part of a longitudinal study of BI (measured at 2-3 years) and social anxiety symptoms (measured at 12 years). To assess IC development, response strategy (criterion) and inhibitory performance (d') were characterized using signal detection theory. Latent growth models were used to characterize the development of IC and examine relations among BI, IC parameters, and social anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: IC response strategy did not change between 5 and 10 years of age, whereas IC performance improved over time. BI scores in toddlerhood predicted neither initial levels (intercept) nor changes (slope) in IC response strategy or IC performance. However, between ages 5 and 10, rate of change in IC performance, but not response strategy, moderated relations between BI and later parent-reported social anxiety symptoms. Specifically, greater age-related improvements in IC performance predicted higher levels of social anxiety in high BI children. CONCLUSIONS: IC development in childhood occurs independent of BI levels. However, rapid increases in IC performance moderate risk for social anxiety symptoms in children with BI. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".