Behavioral and emotional adjustment, family functioning, academic performance, and social relationships in children with selective mutism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addressed four questions which parents of children with selective mutism (SM) frequently ask: (1) Is SM associated with anxiety or oppositional behavior? (2) Is SM associated with parenting and family dysfunction? (3) Will my child fail at school? and (4) Will my child make friends or be teased and bullied? In comparison to a sample of 52 community controls, 52 children with SM were more anxious, obsessive, and prone to somatic complaints. In contrast, children with SM were less oppositional and evidenced fewer attentional difficulties at school. We found no group differences in family structure, economic resources, family functioning, maternal mood difficulties, recreational activities, or social networks. While parents reported no differences in parenting strategies, children with SM were described as less cooperative in disciplinary situations. The academic (e.g., reading and math) and classroom cooperative skills of children with SM did not differ from controls. Parents and teachers reported that children with SM had significant deficits in social skills. Though teachers and parents rated children with SM as less socially assertive, neither teachers nor parents reported that children with SM were victimized more frequently by peers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".