Comparative analysis of self‐injurious behaviour topographies in young children with and without developmental delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study presents post hoc analyses of specific topographies of self-injurious behaviour (SIB) exhibited by young children with developmental delay (DD) and children with typical development (TD). We conducted these analyses to better understand similarities and differences between the groups from a developmental perspective. No previous study has compared the prevalence, severity and co-occurrence of specific topographies of SIB in young children. METHOD: The participants were parents of two groups of children one with DD (n = 49, mean age = 37.5 months) and one with TD (n = 49, mean age = 36.6 months). Individual items of the SIB subscale from the Repetitive Behaviour Scale-Revised were used in the analyses. RESULTS: Seven of the eight Repetitive Behaviour Scale-Revised SIB categories were reported for both groups. Children in the DD group were significantly more likely to engage in Hits Self against Surface or Object, Hits Self with Body Part, Inserts Finger or Object, Skin Picking and Bites Self. Parental ratings of severity were also significantly greater for the DD group for these five topographies. The DD group engaged in a significantly greater number of SIB topographies than the children in the TD group. Children in the TD group were more likely to exhibit a single SIB topography while the DD group were more likely to engage in two or more topographies. Topographies involving self-hitting were not only more frequent among the children in the DD group but also more likely to be rated as moderate or severe in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the TD group, the topographies of SIB exhibited by the DD group were more prevalent, more severe and co-occurred with greater frequency. Inclusion of a group of children with TD provided an important comparative context for the occurrence of SIB in children with DD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".