MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202849429 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041489

Development of a dual-factor measure of adolescent mental health: an analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2014 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study

2021· article· en· W3202849429 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nathan King, Colleen Davison, William Pickett

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityQueen's University
FundersBrock UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversitetet i BergenQueen's UniversityUniversity of St AndrewsPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMental healthPsychopathologyMedicineConstruct validityCross-sectional studyClinical psychologySocial supportPsychiatryProtective factorPsychometricsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Studies of adolescent mental health require valid measures that are supported by evidence-based theories. An established theory is the dual-factor model, which argues that mental health status is only fully understood by incorporating information on both subjective well-being and psychopathology. OBJECTIVES: To develop a novel measure of adolescent mental health based on the dual-factor model and test its construct validity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of national health survey data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Nationally weighted sample of 21 993 grade 6-10 students; average age: 14.0 (SD 1.4) years from the 2014 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study. MEASURES: Self-report indicators of subjective well-being (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect), and psychopathology (psychological symptoms and overt risk-taking behaviour) were incorporated into the dual-factor measure. Characteristics of adolescents families, specific mental health indicators and measures of academic and social functioning were used in the assessment of construct validity. RESULTS: Proportions of students categorised to the four mental health groups indicated by the dual-factor measure were 67.6% 'mentally healthy', 17.5% 'symptomatic yet content', 5.5% 'asymptomatic yet discontent' and 9.4% 'mentally unhealthy'. Being mentally healthy was associated with the highest functioning (greater social support and academic functioning) and being mentally unhealthy was associated with the worst. A one-unit increase (ranges=0-10) in peer support (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.22), family support (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.36), student support (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24) and average school marks (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27) increased the odds of being symptomatic yet content versus mentally unhealthy. Mentally healthy youth were the most likely to live with both parents (77% vs ≤65%) and report their family as well-off (62% vs ≤53%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel, construct valid dual-factor measure of adolescent mental health. This potentially provides a nuanced and comprehensive approach to the assessment of adolescent mental health that is direly needed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207