Longitudinal internalizing psychopathology structure in a diverse community sample of Los Angeles adolescents from 9th to 12th grade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Manifestations of internalizing symptoms vary developmentally, particularly during adolescence, but most taxonomies, including modern structural models of psychopathology, do not adequately account for this. Understanding variation in the structure and components of internalizing psychopathology may improve diagnosis. Methods: Self-reported internalizing symptom data were collected from a diverse sample of LA-county adolescents (N = 3368) during each of the four years of high school (grades 9-12). DSM-based symptoms of generalized anxiety, major depression, social phobia, specific phobia, and obsessive-compulsive problems were assessed. Covariance symptom structures were modeled at the four waves using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Results: Based on model fit, parsimony, and meaningfulness, a five-factor model with one factor for each of the DSM-defined internalizing disorders was selected at freshman year (CFI = 0.94), a two-factor fear-and-distress model at sophomore year (CFI = 0.91), and a one-factor model at both junior (CFI = 0.91) and senior years (CFI = 0.92). In freshman year, the nature of the structure is aligned with DSM conceptions of internalizing problems, in sophomore year, the nature of the structure is aligned with fear-distress conceptualizations of internalizing problems as compared to anxiety-depression, and in junior and senior year, the nature of the structure was aligned with a single internalizing dimension. Conclusion: Findings suggest that internalizing problems become increasingly unidimensional across high school. Findings may indicate changes in symptom presentation; accounting for these changes may improve the identification and treatment of internalizing problems among adolescents.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".