MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212857654 · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13569

Effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youth‐rated problems and strengths in 38 societies

2022· article· en· W4212857654 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Masha Y. Ivanova, Thomas M. Achenbach, Lori V. Turner, Fredrik Almqvist, Ivan Begovac, Niels Bilenberg, Héctor Bird, Anders Broberg, Mery A. Córdova Calderón, Myriam Chahed, Hoang‐Minh Dang, Anca Dobrean, Mandred Döpfner, Neşe Erol, María Forns, Halldór S. Guðmundsson, Helga Hannesdóttir, Yasuko Kanbayashi, Suyen Karki, Hans M. Koot, Michael C. Lambert, Patrick W. L. Leung, Dorcas N. Magai, Alfio Maggiolini, Christa Winkler Metzke, Asghar Minaei, Marina Monzani da Rocha, Paulo Moreira, Mesfin S. Mulatu, Torunn Stene Nøvik, Kyung Ja Oh, Djaouida Petot, Jean‐Michel Petot, Cecilia Pisa, Rolando Pomalima, Alexandra Roussos, Vlasta Rudan, Michael Sawyer, Mimoza Shahini, Zeynep Şimşek, Hans‐Christoph Steinhausen, Frank C. Verhulst, Sheila Weintraub, Bahr Weiss, Tomasz Wolańczyk, Eugene Yuqing Zhang, Nelly Zilber, Rita Žukauskienė

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionQueen's University
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinicians increasingly serve youths from societal/cultural backgrounds different from their own. This raises questions about how to interpret what such youths report. Rescorla et al. (2019, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 1107) found that much more variance in 72,493 parents' ratings of their offspring's mental health problems was accounted for by individual differences than by societal or cultural differences. Although parents' reports are essential for clinical assessment of their offspring, they reflect parents' perceptions of the offspring. Consequently, clinical assessment also requires self-reports from the offspring themselves. To test effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youths' self-ratings of their problems and strengths, we analyzed Youth Self-Report (YSR) scores for 39,849 11-17 year olds in 38 societies. METHODS: Indigenous researchers obtained YSR self-ratings from population samples of youths in 38 societies representing 10 culture cluster identified in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study. Hierarchical linear modeling of scores on 17 problem scales and one strengths scale estimated the percent of variance accounted for by individual differences (including measurement error), society, and culture cluster. ANOVAs tested age and gender effects. RESULTS: Averaged across the 17 problem scales, individual differences accounted for 92.5% of variance, societal differences 6.0%, and cultural differences 1.5%. For strengths, individual differences accounted for 83.4% of variance, societal differences 10.1%, and cultural differences 6.5%. Age and gender had very small effects. CONCLUSIONS: Like parents' ratings, youths' self-ratings of problems were affected much more by individual differences than societal/cultural differences. Most variance in self-rated strengths also reflected individual differences, but societal/cultural effects were larger than for problems, suggesting greater influence of social desirability. The clinical significance of individual differences in youths' self-reports should thus not be minimized by societal/cultural differences, which-while important-can be taken into account with appropriate norms, as can gender and age differences.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207