MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997443639 · doi:10.1017/s0954579419001482

The long-term indirect effect of the early Family Check-Up intervention on adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms via inhibitory control

2020· article· en· W2997443639 on OpenAlexaff
Rochelle F. Hentges, Chelsea Weaver Krug, Daniel S. Shaw, Melvin N. Wilson, Thomas J. Dishion, Kathryn Lemery‐Chalfant

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Psychopathology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsPsychologyInhibitory controlIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyRandomized controlled trialEarly childhoodClinical psychologyExternalizationPsychiatryMedicineCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the long-term effects of a randomized controlled trial of the Family Check-Up (FCU) intervention initiated at age 2 on inhibitory control in middle childhood and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. We hypothesized that the FCU would promote higher inhibitory control in middle childhood relative to the control group, which in turn would be associated with lower internalizing and externalizing symptomology at age 14. Participants were 731 families, with half (n = 367) of the families assigned to the FCU intervention. Using an intent-to-treat design, results indicate that the FCU intervention was indirectly associated with both lower internalizing and externalizing symptoms at age 14 via its effect on increased inhibitory control in middle childhood (i.e., ages 8.5-10.5). Findings highlight the potential for interventions initiated in toddlerhood to have long-term impacts on self-regulation processes, which can further reduce the risk for behavioral and emotional difficulties in adolescence.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and PsychopathologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207