Towards construct validity of relational aggression: An examination of the Children’s Social Behavior Scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relational aggression-or behavior intended to harm the relationships of its victims-has been the focus of interdisciplinary study across developmental, clinical, personality, and social psychology in the last several decades. One of the primary measures used to assess relational aggression in youth is the Children's Social Behavior Scale (CSBS; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), but despite its common usage, the construct validity of this measure has not been comprehensively assessed. In the present study, we used a multistage construct validity framework to thoroughly investigate the nature of relational aggression across six community samples totaling 3,102 youth and their caregivers. We used multiple methods to map the reliability, internal or structural validity, and external validity of this scale. Through these analyses, we found that CSBS Relational Aggression demonstrated strong internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability as well as a robust single factor structure and invariance across multiple demographic groups. External validity analyses positioned relational aggression within a theoretically consistent nomological net including psychopathology, personality, and social developmental factors. Contrary to concerns about the validity of self- and parent-reports of relational aggression, both parent- and youth-report forms of the CSBS Relational Aggression scale demonstrated strong reliability and validity. While construct validation has received inadequate attention in the psychological literature to date, through this project, we aimed to demonstrate how this approach may be used to investigate existing measures across psychological research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".