Evaluating Outcome Factors of Childhood Emotional Neglect: An Exploratory Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiencing childhood maltreatment has been shown to have major implications on adult outcomes. Less is known about the outcomes of childhood emotional neglect (CEN). The purpose of this study was to identify factors related to psychological outcomes of CEN within the domains of depression, anxiety, and alexithymia as a precursor to the development of an inventory. One hundred and fifty participant responses on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20) were collected. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted where nine factors yielded significant results and were titled, “Depressive Symptoms,” “Difficulty Identifying Feelings,” “Usefulness of Feelings,” “Difficulty Describing Feelings,” “Psychosomatic Symptoms,” “Reduced Physical Activation,” “Avoidance of Symbolism in Entertainment Preferences,” “Externality,” and “Anxiety Symptoms,” respectively. This study augments prior literature regarding CEN to demonstrate constructs such as the belief in the usefulness of feelings in problem solving (Factor 3), avoiding entertainment that may have deeper meanings (Factor 7), and an avoidance of engaging in introspection (Factor 8). These results demonstrate that outcomes of CEN may be more complex than previously understood.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 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 teacher head, 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".