Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current work was to explore excessive reassurance seeking (ERS), a behaviour that has been largely understudied in children, as it relates to anxiety. In Study 1, a questionnaire that comprehensively assesses ERS in children with anxiety was developed and validated. This new questionnaire fills an important gap in the literature, as existing ERS measures for children are limited to a single type of ERS behaviour, despite research showing that other types of ERS are common and appear to be more closely associated with anxiety. In Study 2, the relationship between ERS behaviour and executive functioning was examined. A total of 122 children ages 8 to 15 and their parents participated in this study and completed measures assessing psychosocial and behavioural functioning, as well as executive functioning skills. Findings revealed that the new ERS questionnaire possesses good internal consistency and convergent validity with measures of anxiety. An Unweighted Least Squares estimation suggested two underlying factors: (1) ERS in response to general concerns about safety, and (2) ERS in response to concerns about performance and social perceptions. Specific anxiety symptoms were found to be differentially associated with each of these two factors. With regards to ERS and executive functioning, both parent and child-reported ERS were related to difficulties with cognitive shifting. The relationship between ERS and the other executive functioning variables assessed was inconsistent. Together, this research provides new insights into the association of ERS with different anxiety symptoms and executive functions, and a validated questionnaire that will support future research and enhance assessment and treatment planning for children with ERS.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".