Relationship between Parenting Style and Children’s Obsessive-compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generally, parenting styles are variables that affect behaviors of obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD). To do so, the present study aimed to examine the relationship between parenting styles with obsessive-compulsive disorder in the students in high schools of Mashhad, Iran. As such, a quantitative methodology in form of a correlational design was employed in this research, which comprised two main variables including parenting styles and Iranian teenagers’ OCD. To address the research objective, 180 teenagers who were students at some schools in Mashhad, Iran, and their parents, completed the study questionnaires which included Baumarind parenting styles Scale (1971) and the Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (2011). The analysis of the data obtained from implementing the questionnaires was performed through SPSS25 software in two sections: descriptive and inferential (Pearson Correlation Coefficient and regression analysis, i.e. ANOVA). The results showed that there was a significant relationship between OCD and the three parenting styles. Also, the relationship between the authoritarian parenting style and the symptoms of OCD (r = -0.79) was significant in a negative way and with 99% certainty (p</01). On the other hand, there was a positive correlation between authoritarian parenting style and OCD (r = 0/60). Finally, there was a positive correlation between permissive parenting style and OCD (r = 0/55). It can be then concluded that parenting styles can strongly predict OCD and determine 0.64 of the OCD.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".