ArticleCollabra. Psychology2023
Measuring CHAOS? Evaluating the short-form Confusion, Hubbub And Order Scale.
Article in Collabra. Psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between child and youth physical activity and family functioning: a systematic review of observational studies.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- The CARING study: Examining biological, behavioral, and genetic mechanisms in the intergenerational transmission of toxic stress.Research in nursing & health · 2024Article
- Adaptation and validation for use in Brazil of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS).Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) - short form - is a survey tool intended to capture information about home environments. It is widely used in studies of child and adolescent development and psychopathology, particularly twin studies. The original long form of the scale comprised 15 items and was validated in a sample of infants in the 1980s. The short form of the scale was developed in the late 1990s and contains six items, including four from the original scale, and two new items. This short form has not been validated and is the focus of this study. We use five samples drawn from twin studies in Australia, the UK, and the USA, and examine measurement invariance of the CHAOS short-form. We first compare alternate confirmatory factor models for each group; we next test between-group configural, metric and scalar invariance; finally, we examine predictive validity of the scale under different conditions. We find evidence that a two-factor configuration of the six items is more appropriate than the commonly used one-factor model. Second, we find measurement non-invariance across groups at the metric invariance step, with items performing differently depending on the sample. We also find inconsistent results in tests of predictive validity using family-level socioeconomic status and academic achievement as criterion variables. The results caution the continued use of the short-form CHAOS in its current form and recommend future revisions and development of the scale for use in developmental research.
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.