Standardized observation of temperament in Lebanese toddlers using the laboratory temperament assessment battery (Lab-TAB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Temperament is the difference between individuals’ emotional and behavioral responses to diverse external events. It is a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Hence, the need to assess temperament objectively and better understand its impact on developmental and interpersonal outcomes. Measuring temperament in early childhood can be challenging since parents will report their subjective perceptions about their toddlers. While surveys are quick instruments that require less clinical involvement, standardized laboratory assessments secure a relatively high level of objective observation. Since no published studies were conducted in Arab countries, the current research focuses on examining temperament in a sample of twenty mother-toddler dyads using the Laboratory Temperament Assessment Battery (Lab-TAB) locomotor version. Interrater reliability and validity were assessed. Higher-order temperament components were determined by principal component analysis. T test and one-way ANOVA examined the association between demographics and temperament components. Results The retained variables ranged between fair (> 0.43) and good (< 0.98) for all Lab-TAB episodes. Three higher-order temperament components were obtained. Age was significantly negatively correlated with Lab-TAB Fear dimension, r = − .47, p > .05, and Lab-TAB temperament component 3, r = .45, p > .05. Male toddlers (M = .55, SD = 1.055) had significantly higher levels of temperament component 3 compared to female (M = − .45, SD = .718), t(18) = 2.52, p < .05. There was a significant effect of time spent with mother on temperament component 3, F(2,17) = 7.01, p < .05. Conclusion After exploring the temperament factor structure, we found that the Lab-TAB locomotor version was a valid tool to be used to observe temperament in toddlers living in Lebanon, a Middle Eastern culture. Some gender significant differences would deserve deeper exploration in future research. A replication of this study would also strengthen its findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".