ArticlePloS one2019
The factor structure and construct validity of the parent-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits among school-aged children and adolescents.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits Across Early Adolescence: Further Evaluation of Short Versions.Child psychiatry and human development · 2026Article
- Core features of callous-unemotional traits: a cross-cultural comparison of youth in four countries.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2024Article
- Allostatic load in children: The cost of empathic concern.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Validation of the inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits among school-going adolescents in Malaysia.PloS one · 2023Article
- Factorial Structure of the Parent-Reported Version of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits Among Belgian Children: A Theory-Based Model.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Callous-Unemotional Traits Do Not Predict Functional Family Therapy Outcomes for Adolescents With Behavior Problems.Frontiers in psychology · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we assessed the factor structure and construct validity of the parent-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) among school-aged children and adolescents, aged 6 to 15 years, in a community setting in Japan (n = 10,936). We investigated 15 models that have been reported in previous studies and used confirmatory factor analyses to determine a model that might actually be the best-fit among these. We then examined the correlations between the score of ICU and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in the best fit model and the three-factor bifactor (3FBF) model with the original ICU through cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis to determine the concurrent and predictive validity of the ICU. The results showed that the best-fit model was the two-factor bifactor (2FBF) model with a revised version of the ICU with 12 items, excluding all but one item of unemotional factors. The cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis showed that higher general callous-unemotional factor scores, callousness and uncaring specific factor scores were significantly associated with a higher level of conduct problems and a lower level of prosocial behaviors in the SDQ. These tendencies were shown both in the 2FBF model with the revised version of the ICU and the 3FBF model with the original ICU. We conclude that the 2FBF model was useful for school-aged community samples, as it predicts increases in conduct problems and decreases in prosocial behavior with fewer items than the 3FBF model.
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.