MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407263105 · doi:10.21926/obm.icm.2501009

Evaluating Screening Guidelines for Disruptive Behavior Problems in Children: A Systematic Review of the Accuracy of Parents’ Concerns

2025· review· en· W4407263105 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Wells, Raymond H. Baillargeon

Bibliographic record

VenueOBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewPsychologySystematic errorMEDLINEMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disruptive behavior problems (DBPs) in young children are early indicators of potential disruptive behavior disorders (DBD), which can lead to negative health and social outcomes. Secondary prevention strategies that target DBPs may facilitate early interventions and reduce these risks. Current Canadian pediatric practice guidelines provide an example one such strategy and suggest screening for DBPs only if a child’s parent reports concerns about their behavior. This systematic review sought to determine if parents’ concerns can provide enough information to justify a decision in favour of, or against, screening for DBPs. The protocol was registered on Prospero (CRD42021157492), and no funding was received. Six databases were searched (March 23–26, 2022) for prospective, retrospective, or naturalistic studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of parents' concerns. Studies were included if they elicited parents' concerns about their child's behavior via an index test, used a reference standard to identify DBPs in children aged 0-5, and reported true/false positive and true/false negative outcomes. Studies were excluded if they did not include children in the target age range, did not report the outcomes of interest, used inappropriate sampling methods, measured heterogeneous mental health problems, elicited heterogeneous concerns from parents, or if they were not a primary analysis of data. Risk of Bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and results were synthesized to produce calibrated estimates of the accuracy of parents’ concerns in the form of weighted kappa coefficients. Of 53 studies reviewed, only one met the eligibility criteria. Moderate agreement was found between the absence of DBPs and parents' concerns (k = 0.533, 95% CI: 0.501-0.564) and fair agreement for the presence of DBPs and parents’ concerns (k = 0.255, 95% CI: 0.238-0.272). These findings suggest that parents' concerns alone may not be sufficiently accurate to guide clinical screening decisions, highlighting a significant gap in the literature. Further research is needed to validate this approach. Until more data becomes available, clinicians should be cautious when interpreting the presence or absence of parents’ concerns about their child’s behavior, and in using parents’ concerns when making decisions to screen for DBPs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.297
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.297
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0210.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOBM Integrative and Complementary MedicineSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207