ArticlePsychological assessment2019
Shared and unique variances of interpersonal callousness and low prosocial behavior.
Article in Psychological assessment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of students' sense of social connectedness on prosocial behavior in higher education institutions in Guangxi, China: A perspective of perceived teachers' character teaching behavior and social support.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Health and Functional Outcomes for Shared and Unique Variances of Interpersonal Callousness and Low Prosocial Behavior.Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although low prosocial behavior (LPB) items have been incorporated into youth measures of callousness, it remains unclear from current factor analytic findings whether callous traits and LPB are best operationalized as a common construct, or distinct dimensions. Using data from a population-representative birth cohort (N = 5,463), this study compared 4 latent factor structures for interpersonal callousness (IC; 6 items) and LPB (5 items) at age 13: (a) unidimensional; (b) two-factor; (c) higher-order (with 2 subfactors); and (d) bifactor (1 general and 2 specific residual factors). Alternative models distinguishing positively and negatively worded items were tested for comparative purposes. To assess the external validity of the factors that emerged from the best-fitting model, associations with early parenting styles and psychiatric comorbidities were examined. A bifactor model, achieving invariance for males and females, offered the best fit for these data. However, additional bifactor-specific indices suggested that the specific IC factor did not offer a unique contribution to the total variance over and above the general factor (IC/LPB). Of the remaining factors, IC/LPB was associated with higher levels of harsh parenting, externalizing and internalizing disorder, and social-cognitive difficulties, and lower levels of warm parenting. The LPB factor, meanwhile, was associated with greater social-cognitive difficulties and externalizing disorder, and lower maternal warmth, evoking a phenotype that may be more indicative of the autism spectrum than IC. These findings suggest that the shared variance underlying IC and LPB taps a severe psychiatric phenotype, while the residual variance for LPB may represent a distinct profile of social-cognitive dysfunction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.