Validation of a short form of the perceptions of interparental conflict in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to interparental conflict (IC) in childhood has been documented to be an important risk factor for parents’ wellbeing and the intergenerational transmission of trauma. However, there is no French instrument available for measuring the childhood exposure to IC in parents. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of a short form of the Perceptions of Interparental Conflict questionnaire (PIC-SF), which assesses memories of interparental conflict that occurred in the parents’ own childhood. Data were collected between August 2021 and February 2023, and participants had a mean age of 39.2 years old (SD = 5.4). Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted among a representative sample of 610 parents of a toddler in the province of Québec (Canada), which was split into two subsamples (n = 305). Results indicate that the PIC-SF demonstrates strong internal consistency supported by Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.95) and McDonald’s omega (ω = 0.95). Additionally, a unifactorial structure was supported, accounting for 74% of the variance. Correlation analyses indicated that memories of exposure to IC in childhood were related to childhood interpersonal trauma, increased psychological distress, self-capacity alterations, and destructive conflict management strategies. Researchers and practitioners have access to a promising measure of memories of exposure to IC in childhood that could be used, free of fees, to document past family experiences and inform well-tailored 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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".