Self and parent-reported sleep difficulties of adolescents with childhood conduct problems and comorbid psychological problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Children with conduct problems (CP) exhibit problematic externalizing behaviors that violate the rights of others and/or societal norms, are likely to present with comorbid psychological problems, engage in high-risk behaviours during adolescence and in turn, display poorer prospective health in adulthood. However, little known about their adolescent quotidian behaviors, such as their sleep behaviours, which may contribute to these poorer outcomes. Objectives Using a sample designed to assess the longitudinal consequences of CP, the current study examines how histories of CP and comorbidity with depressive symptoms and/or attention-hyperactivity problems are associated with sleep difficulties during adolescence. Methods 744 participants from an ongoing longitudinal study in Québec, Canada were assessed for CP and comorbidities when they were 6 to 10-years-old. They were classified as without CP, CP only, CP and depressive symptoms, CP and attention-hyperactivity problems, or CP, depressive symptoms and attention-hyperactivity problems based on parent and teacher-reported indices. Sleep difficulties were assessed 7 years later, using self and parent-reported indices. Regression analyses controlling for sex, age, family income, maternal education and medications were conducted. Results demonstrated that youth and parents from all CP groups reported more sleep difficulties than youth without histories of CP. Participants from the CP, depressive symptoms and attention-hyperactivity problem group reported more sleep difficulty than all other groups, while their parents did not. Conclusions These findings suggest that histories of CP, regardless of comorbidity, predispose youth to future sleep difficulties and highlight the importance of incorporating self and parental indices of sleep as well as examining the effect of comorbidity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".