Parent‐ and teacher‐reported associations from adolescent bifactor models of psychopathology: an outcome‐wide association study of 26 outcomes in mid‐life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent mental health problems have lasting impacts on health and social functioning later in life. Evidence to date mostly comes from studies of specific diagnostic categories/dimensions, but hierarchical models can elucidate associations with general as well as specific dimensions of psychopathology. We provide evidence on long-term outcomes of general and specific dimensions of adolescent psychopathology using both parent and teacher reports. METHODS: Parents and teachers from the Isle of Wight study completed Rutter behaviour scales when participants were 14-15 years old (n = 2,275), assessing conduct, emotional and hyperactivity problems. Metric-invariant bifactor models for parents and teachers were used to test domain-specific and domain-general associations with 26 self-reported psychosocial outcomes at mid-life (age 44-45 years, n = 1,423). Analyses examined the individual and joint contributions of parent and teacher reports of adolescent psychopathology. All analyses were adjusted for covariates (gender, IQ and family social class) and weighted to adjust for the probability of nonresponse. RESULTS: Parent- and teacher-reported general factors of psychopathology (GFP) were associated with 15 and 12 outcomes, respectively, across the socioeconomic, relationship, health and personality domains, along with an index of social exclusion. Nine outcomes were associated with both parent- and teacher-reported GFP, with no differences in the strength of the associations across reporters. Teacher-reported specific factors (conduct, emotional and hyperactivity) were associated with 21 outcomes, and parent-reported specific factors were associated with seven. Five outcomes were associated with the same specific factors from both reporters; only one showed reporter differences in the strength of the associations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the relevance of the GFP and the utility of teacher as well as parent reports of adolescent mental health in predicting psychosocial outcomes later in the life course.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".