ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2017
The Social Aptitudes Scale: looking at both "ends" of the social functioning dimension.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Social Aptitudes Scale in two clinical samples.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Predicting the future of neuroimaging predictive models in mental health.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Review
- A longitudinal resource for studying connectome development and its psychiatric associations during childhood.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Maternal depression trajectories and offspring positive attributes and social aptitudes at early adolescence: 2004 Pelotas birth cohort.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2021Article
- Measuring strengths and weaknesses in dimensional psychiatry.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDimensional approaches are likely to advance understanding of human behaviors and emotions. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether instruments in psychiatry capture variability at the full spectrum of these dimensions. We aimed to investigate this issue for two scales assessing distinct aspects of social functioning: the Social Aptitudes Scale (SAS), a "bidirectional" scale constructed to investigate both "ends" of social functioning; and the social Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-social), a "unidirectional" scale constructed to assess social problems.
methodsWe investigated 2512 children and adolescents aged 6-14. Item response theory was used to investigate on which range of the trait each scale captures information. We performed quantile regressions to investigate if correlations between SAS and CBCL-social vary within different levels of social aptitudes dimension and multiple logistic regressions to investigate associations with negative and positive clinical outcomes.
resultsSAS was able to provide information on the full range of social aptitudes, whereas CBCL-social provided information on subjects with high levels of social problems. Quantile regressions showed SAS and CBCL-social have higher correlations for subjects with low social aptitudes and non-significant correlations for subjects with high social aptitudes. Multiple logistic regressions showed that SAS was able to provide independent clinical predictions even after adjusting for CBCL-social scores.
conclusionsOur results provide further validity to SAS and exemplify the potential of "bidirectional" scales to dimensional assessment, allowing a better understanding of variations that occur in the population and providing information for children with typical and atypical development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28567593What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.