MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919976532 · doi:10.1177/1073191119831781

Validation of the Intention Attribution Test for Children (IAC)

2019· article· en· W2919976532 on OpenAlex
Stéphanie Vanwalleghem, Raphaële Miljkovitch, Alyssa Counsell, Leslie Atkinson, Annie Vinter

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAttributionAttribution biasTest (biology)Developmental psychologyContext (archaeology)Construct validitySocial psychologyIntervention (counseling)HarmSocial perceptionPerceptionPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Intention Attribution Test for Children (IAC) was created to assess hostile attribution bias in preschool- and early school-aged children. It comprises 16 cartoon strips presenting situations in which one character (either a child or an adult) causes harm to another, either intentionally, accidentally (nonintentional), or without his or her intention being clear (ambiguous). Its validity was tested on 233 children aged 4 to 12 years. Exploratory factor analysis and item response theory models demonstrated support for a single factor of hostile attribution bias for the ambiguous and nonintentional items. Analyses revealed, however, that the intentional items did not contribute to this same overall construct of hostile intention attribution bias. Correlations with the Social Perception Test and with sociometry suggest good validity of the IAC. The IAC may be a useful instrument for research and in the context of therapeutic intervention addressing socially inappropriate behavior in childhood.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.312 · 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