ArticlePersonality and individual differences2025
EVALUATING JOINT MODELS OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND PERSONALITY ITEMS IN CHILDREN.
Article in Personality and individual differences, 2025. 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.
- A network analysis of the relationship between temperament characteristics and problem behaviors in preadolescents.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Taxonomic models of psychopathology and personality share striking similarities, but lines of research are often conducted independently. Integrating the two frameworks facilitates the inclusion of important constructs that are commonly overlooked in traditional models of psychopathology, but there is not yet consensus on the best joint factor structure (e.g., two-factor psychopathology models; multi-factor personality models), particularly in developmentally important periods such as childhood. The current study integrated psychopathology and personality data collected via parent-report from 649 children (52.54% male; aged 8-12) to compare four-factor, three-factor, and two-factor bifactor models. Although a four-factor model demonstrated the best fit according to traditional goodness of fit indices, only a two-factor internalizing/externalizing model satisfied interpretability/reliability criteria. Additionally, the inclusion of positive affectivity items improved the predictive utility of an internalizing factor when predicting depression. Findings suggest that traditional two-factor internalizing/externalizing models produce factors that are best suited for interpretation and reproduction in research and clinical work but can be supplemented with important temperament dimensions such as positive affectivity.
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.