Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI) for use in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI) is a cost-free 75 question-questionnaire developed by an Italian group to collect information from parents on the behavior of children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. It assesses different areas of children's behavior and psychopathology, including internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and can be used to identify children at risk of mental disorders both in clinical and epidemiological settings. In this study, the authors present a Brazilian-Portuguese adaptation of the CABI and its psychometric properties. METHODS: First, the authors conducted a rigorous transcultural adaptation of CABI's questions and instructions for the Brazilian context. In an online sample of 598 parents, the authors found high reliability (internal consistency) for the CABI's main subscales. RESULTS: Validity was supported by exploratory factor analysis (the authors found 6 factors representing several aspects of psychopathology both according to the DSM and HiTop models) and significant differences in most CABI's subscales between children with parent-reported psychopathology and typically developing ones. The present study suggests that the adapted version of CABI is a valid and reliable measure that can be used in Brazil. CONCLUSIONS: The CABI can be useful to the pediatrician to get fast but wide information from parents on the behavioral condition of their children or adolescents, and also to decide whether it is appropriate to consult a mental health professional.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".