MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000397997 · doi:10.1037/dev0000885

Constructing the Children’s Future Thinking Questionnaire: A reliable and valid measure of children’s future-oriented cognition.

2020· article· en· W3000397997 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionPsycINFODevelopmental psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Cognitive developmentInternal consistencySet (abstract data type)Test validityPsychometricsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future-oriented cognition (planning, prospective memory, episodic foresight, saving, and delay of gratification) involves a critical set of skills that children must develop for successful daily functioning. The current study developed the Children's Future Thinking Questionnaire (CFTQ), a parent-report on 3- to 7-year-olds' future-oriented cognition. The CFTQ showed high internal consistency and detected development of future-oriented cognition (Study 1; N = 145). Study 2 (N = 255) showed high internal consistency reliability and preliminary validity of the CFTQ. Study 3 (N = 101) confirmed strong reliability and validity of the CFTQ. Study 4 (N = 105) revealed excellent test-retest reliability of the CFTQ. Thus, the CFTQ is the first reliable and valid parent-report measure of children's developing future-oriented cognitive abilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 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.

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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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