Discrepancies between mother and father ratings of child behavior after early mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI) are highly prevalent during early childhood and can lead to behavioral difficulties. Parent report questionnaires are widely used to assess children's behavior, but they are subject to parental bias. The aim of this study was to investigate parental discrepancies in internalized and externalized behavior ratings of children who sustain mTBI in early childhood (i.e., between 18 and 60 months) and to determine if parenting stress or family burden related to the injury contribute to parental discrepancies. Mothers and fathers of 85 children with mTBI, 58 orthopedic injured (OI), and 82 typically developing children (TDC) completed the Child Behavior Checklist 6 months after the injury. The primary caregiver completed the Parental Distress subscale of the Parenting Stress Index and the Family Burden of Injury Interview. Mothers reported more internalized and externalized behavior problems than fathers in the mTBI group. No group difference was found in the OI or TDC groups. Neither parenting stress nor family burden related to the injury predicted discrepancies in behavior ratings. Mothers' and fathers' perceptions of behavior after their young child sustains mTBI appear to differ, suggesting that both parents' views are useful in understanding outcome. This difference was not found in either of the comparison groups indicating that factors related to mTBI may underlie the rating discrepancies.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".