Validating the Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioural Scales‐Brief Version (OCHS‐EBS‐B) in children with chronic physical illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A substantial proportion of children have a physical illness; these children commonly experience physical–mental comorbidity. To assess child mental health, brief scales that can be used in clinical and research settings are needed. This study assessed the validity and reliability of parent‐reported Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioural Scale‐Brief Version (OCHS‐EBS‐B) scores. Methods Data come from a longitudinal study of children aged 2–16 years with a physical illness recruited from outpatient clinics at a pediatric hospital. Confirmatory factor analysis and McDonald's coefficient assessed the factor structure and internal consistency reliability of the OCHS‐EBS‐B, respectively. Point biserial correlations assessed agreement between the OCHS‐EBS‐B and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI‐KID), a structured diagnostic interview. The Wilcoxon rank sum test compared OCHS‐EBS‐B scores between children with versus without physical–mental comorbidity (known‐group validity). Results The three‐factor structure of the OCHS‐EBS‐B was replicated in this sample of children with physical illness (χ 2 = 196.23(272), p < 0.001; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.034 [0.027, 0.044]). It had excellent internal consistency reliability (ω = 0.86–0.92) and was moderately correlated with the MINI‐KID (baseline: r pb = 0.43–0.51; 6 months: r pb = 0.55–0.65). OCHS‐EBS‐B scores were significantly higher among children with versus without physical–mental comorbidity. Conclusions Findings confirm psychometric evidence that the OCHS‐EBS‐B is a valid and reliable measure of mental health in children with chronic physical illness. Its brevity and robust psychometric properties make the OCHS‐EBS‐B a strong candidate for routine use in integrated pediatric physical and mental health services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".