Individual- and Family-Level Associations between Child Psychopathology and Parenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting can protect against the development of, or increase risk for, child psychopathology; however, it is unclear if parenting is related to psychopathology symptoms in a specific domain, or to broad liability for psychopathology. Parenting differs between and within families, and both overall family-level parenting and the specific parenting a child receives may be important in estimating transdiagnostic associations with psychopathology. Data come from a cross-sectional epidemiological sample (N = 10,605 children ages 4-17 in 6,434 households). Parents rated child internalizing and externalizing symptoms and their parenting towards each child. General and specific (internalizing, externalizing) factors, derived from a bifactor model, were regressed on parenting using multilevel modelling. Less warmth and more harsh/inconsistent parenting in the family, and toward a child specifically, were associated with higher general psychopathology and specific externalizing problems. Unexpectedly, more warmth in the family, and toward a child specifically, was associated with higher specific internalizing problems in 4-11 year-olds (not 12-17 year-olds). Less warmth and more harsh/inconsistent parenting are broad correlates of child psychopathology. Harsh/inconsistent parenting, is also related to specific externalizing problems. Parents may behave more warmly when their younger children have specific internalizing problems, net of overall psychopathology.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".