ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2020
Risk-Taking Patterns of Children, Associated Cognitive Weaknesses, and Prevention of Negative Outcomes.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Accidents, drug use, and unsafe sex associated with greater propensity for risk-taking are leading causes of illness and death among adolescents. This study aimed to help identify and further characterize children with maladaptive risk-taking to improve primary prevention interventions. Methods: Two scores from the Bubblegum Analog Risk-Taking Task for Children (BART-C), total points and average inflations of unpopped bubbles, were used in a cluster analysis to identify distinct patterns of risk-taking among 6,267 kindergarten through eighth-grade children. Clusters were compared with the Flanker Test of Focused Attention, the Go/No-Go test of inhibition, and the List Sorting Working Memory Test. Results: Both BART-C scores made significant (p<0.001) contributions in defining three clusters of children: reckless, risk avoidant, and adaptive risk-taking. Clusters differed significantly on Flanker Test measures of incongruent accuracy (p=0.004) and reaction time (p<0.001), Go/No-Go inhibition (p=0.001), and List Sorting Working Memory Test scores (p<0.001). The reckless cluster had lower Flanker accuracy and Go/No-Go inhibition than did the other groups and lower working memory than the adaptive risk-taking group. Compared with adaptive risk-takers, the risk-avoidant group was slower (p<0.001), showed a nonsignificant trend toward greater accuracy on the Flanker test, and had lower working memory scores (p<0.001). Conclusions: The BART-C defined two maladaptive risk-taking clusters: reckless and risk avoidant. Significant differences in cognitive function between these groups and the adaptive risk-taking group provides external validation of and further characterizes the clusters. Early intervention may prevent future health-compromising behaviors among reckless children and may promote fuller learning and development among risk-avoidant children.
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.