Reciprocal associations between child disclosure, parental solicitation, and behavior problems during middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental knowledge is often the result of parents soliciting information from their child and their child's disclosure of that information. Although child disclosure is most closely (and negatively) associated with behavior problems in adolescence, it is not yet known whether this is also the case in childhood. The aim of this study was to examine the longitudinal associations between child disclosure, parental solicitation, and behavior problems in Grades 1 to 4 in a Canadian sample, taking into account intra-individual stability, the child's gender, and socioeconomic status. The mothers and teachers of 911 children (62.7% boys) completed questionnaires in Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. A Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) showed that behavior problems in Grade 2 predicted an increase in parental solicitation in Grade 3. In contrast, behavior problems in Grade 3 predicted a decrease in parental solicitation in Grade 4. No cross-lagged association with child disclosure was observed. Although these results differ from those reported in adolescence, they suggest that middle childhood is a sensitive period for parent-child communication and behavior problems.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".