The longitudinal association between externalizing and internalizing problems: An exploration of the dual failure model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dual Failure Model suggests that peer victimization (social failure) and academic difficulties (academic failure) mediate the association between externalizing and later internalizing problems. The present study sought to better understand why children with externalizing problems develop later internalizing problems by testing the Dual Failure Model using a sample of 744 children (aged 6 to 10 at Time 1 [T1]), of whom 434 (44.7% girls) presented with high levels of conduct problems at study inception. Both parent and teacher ratings of externalizing and internalizing problems support the social failure pathway, but not the academic failure pathway. Children with externalizing behaviors at T1 who developed internalizing problems 2 years later did so via their experiences of peer victimization. These results apply for both boys and girls and do not vary according to child age at T1 or the level of conduct problems at study inception. These findings underscore the importance of early screening and intervention for externalizing behavioral problems in order to reduce subsequent peer victimization and internalizing problems. Findings regarding the consequences of internalizing are also discussed. (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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".