The 2014 Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioural Scales (OCHS-EBS) Part I: A Checklist for Dimensional Measurement of Selected DSM-5 Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the development and psychometric properties of the 2014 Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioural Scales (OCHS-EBS) for dimensional measurement of 7 disorders based on criteria from the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Methods: Scale items were selected by agreement among 19 child psychologists and psychiatrists rating the correspondence between item descriptions and DSM-5 symptoms. Psychometric evaluation of the item properties and parent/caregiver and youth scales came from a general population study of 10,802 children and youth aged 4 to 17 years in 6537 families. Test-retest reliability data were collected from a subsample of 280 children and their caregivers who independently completed the OCHS-EBS checklist on 2 occasions 7 to 14 days apart. Structural equation modelling was used to assess internal and external convergent and discriminant validity—the latter tested against the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID). Results: Confirmatory factor analyses exhibited adequate item fit to all scales. Except for conduct disorder and youth-assessed separation anxiety disorder, internal (Cronbach’s α) and test-retest reliability (Pearson’s r) for scale scores were 0.70 or above. Except for youth-assessed conduct disorder, the OCHS-EBS met criteria for internal and convergent and discriminant validity. Compared with the MINI-KID, the OCHS-EBS met criteria for external convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusions: The OCHS-EBS provide reliable and valid dimensional measurement of 7 DSM-5 disorders assessed by caregivers and youth in the general population. Part II describes use of the OCHS-EBS as a categorical (present/absent) measure of disorder.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".