MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3194474909 · doi:10.1177/07067437211037125

The 25-Item Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioural Scales-Brief Version (OCHS-EBS-B): Test-Retest Reliability and Construct Validity When Used as Categorical Measures

2021· article· en· W3194474909 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michael H. Boyle, Laura Duncan, Li Wang, Katholiki Georgiades

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsPsychologyCategorical variableEquivalence (formal languages)Construct validityPsychometricsKappaClinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Developmental psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Child and youth mental health problems are often assessed by parent self-completed checklists that produce dimensional scale scores. When converted to binary ratings of disorder, little is known about their psychometric properties in relation to classifications based on lay-administered structured diagnostic interviews. In addition to estimating agreement, our objective is to test for statistical equivalence in the test-retest reliability and construct validity of two instruments used to classify child emotional, behavioural, and attentional disorders: the 25-item, parent completed Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioural Scales-Brief Version (OCHS-EBS-B) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents-parent version (MINI-KID-P). METHODS: = 452) and uses the confidence interval approach to test for statistical equivalence. Reliability is based on kappa (κ). Construct validity is based on standardized beta coefficients (β) estimated in structural equation models. RESULTS: The average differences between the MINI-KID-P and OCHS-EBS-B in κ and β were -0.022 and -0.020, respectively. However, in both instances, criteria for statistical equivalence were met in only 5 of 12 comparisons. Based on κ, between-instrument agreement on the classifications of disorder went from 0.481 (attentional disorder) to 0.721 (emotional disorder) but were substantially higher (0.731 to 0.895, respectively) when corrected for attenuation due to measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Although falling short of equivalence, the results suggest on balance that the reliability and validity of the two instruments for classifying child psychiatric disorder assessed by parents are highly comparable. This conclusion is supported by the high levels of agreement between the instruments after correcting for attenuation due to measurement error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→