Parent-Child Agreement on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multiple informants are often used in the assessment of child psychopathology; however, parent-child agreement is low in child psychiatry. The objective of this exploratory study was to assess informant agreement on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID) in a clinical sample of children with mental disorders and their parents, and to examine health and demographic factors associated with agreement. METHOD: MINI-KID results were analyzed for 88 parent-child dyads. Children were between 8-17 years old and were receiving in- or outpatient services for at least one mental disorder at a pediatric hospital. Kappas were calculated to assess parent-child agreement and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with agreement. RESULTS: Agreement was low to moderate (κ=0.19-0.41) across the MINI-KID modules. Household income was associated with agreement for major depression, generalized anxiety, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Recruitment setting and parent psychological distress were associated with agreement for generalized anxiety and separation anxiety, respectively. Age, sex, and child disability/impairment were not associated with agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Parent-child agreement on the MINI-KID was low to moderate, and few factors were associated with agreement. These initial findings reaffirm the need for multiple informants when assessing psychopathology in children and can be used by health professionals to facilitate parent-child discussions in clinical settings in child psychiatry.
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 | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".