Evidence of the validity of the child self‐regulation & behaviour questionnaire for the Brazilian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poor early childhood self‐regulation is related to many mental health problems and antisocial behaviours, so it is important to use psychometrically sound instruments to assess children's self‐regulation and behavioural development. The aim of this study is to report the translation, adaptation, as well as explore the construct validity of the child self‐regulation & behaviour questionnaire (CSBQ) for the Brazilian context. The process consisted of different steps, such as transcultural translation, item intelligibility analysis, and psychometric analysis based on classical and contemporary theories. The validation process was carried out on a sample of 277 parents/caregivers (35.00 ± 6.72 years old) of 281 children (4.92 ± 1.45 years old; 156 females). The final Brazilian version showed adequate values of semantic, idiomatic, and conceptual equivalence. The validation process resulted in a seven‐dimensional model with 33 items. The validation of Brazilian CSBQ is promising for investigating early self‐regulation and behaviour problems in low‐middle income contexts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".