The influence of sibling relationship quality on the social, emotional, and behavioral functioning of children and adolescents: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families play a pivotal role in the development of social-emotional outcomes. Recent research indicates that sibling relationship quality plays a particularly important role in child and adolescent social, emotional, and behavioral development. To date, there are few studies that have translated this information in a manner that is useful for professionals working with children, adolescents, and their families. The present scoping review aims to fill this gap in the literature. Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1990 and 2021 were reviewed and synthesized. Results highlighted the unique ways that sibling negativity and positivity influence the development of social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes. Namely, sibling negativity was found to play a primary role in influencing adverse outcomes, such as internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and social difficulties. However, in some cases, sibling positivity was found to decrease the incidence of these outcomes. Sibling positivity was also found to be a protective factor in the context of adverse life events, such as trauma. Results indicate a need for assessment strategies aimed at identifying problematic sibling relationship qualities. Additionally, results support the need for interventions that reduce sibling negativity and promote sibling positivity that can be delivered by professionals as well as families.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".