Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42737005›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Whose School Is Safe? Informant-Specific Validity in School Safety and Student Well-Being Assessment Across 63 Education Systems.

Georgios Sideridis, Mohammed Alghamdi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Georgios SideridisBoston Children's Hospital, BARD, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Mohammed AlghamdiDepartment of Self-Development Skills, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

King Saud University ORF-2026-601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesSchools constitute the principal setting for the identification of children's psychosocial risk and the delivery of preventive support, and school-health surveillance therefore depends on informant reports. Selection of the reporting informant is constrained by feasibility, cost, and questionnaire length, which frequently preclude multi-informant assessments, and the question of whether adult and child reports index a common property has predominantly been examined in single-country designs. The present study estimated the criterion-related validity of child, teacher, and principal reports of school safety across multiple education systems, against outcomes spanning children's experience, institutional functioning, and externally assessed achievements; the estimand was thus informant-specific validity rather than cross-informant agreement.

methodsTIMSS 2023 Grade 4 data from 12,955 schools in 63 education systems (395,961 children, 27,100 teacher records) were analyzed, with child, teacher, and principal reports modeled as separate informants. Students were randomly split within schools so that no student contributed both a predictor and an outcome; the split was replicated 50 times and averaged. Convergence was evaluated with a multitrait-multi-informant model, with ceiling effects and differential unreliability specified as rival explanations; informant contributions were estimated by an exact relative-importance (LMG) variance decomposition, with response surface analysis reported as a secondary characterization of directional discrepancy.

resultsMedian school-level cross-informant correlations were below 0.10 and were not attributable to ceiling effects or to unreliability. With all three informants retained, the child report accounted for 95% (95% CI 92-97) of the informant-explained variance in school belonging and 75% (65-82) in peer victimization, but 44% (28-59) in mathematics, where the three contributions were approximately equal. These proportions were computed on a modest total: the three informant scores jointly explained between 1% and 13% of between-school variance. The pattern was robust to informant, item, covariate, and weighting specifications, and to correction for differential predictor unreliability.

conclusionsCriterion-related informant validity in school safety measurement was domain-specific. For outcomes describing children's experience, adult reports contributed substantially lesser than child reports and cannot be regarded as interchangeable substitutes for children's reports of experienced safety. Because school-health surveillance, risk identification, preventive targeting, and resource allocation depend on these inputs, valid monitoring requires student self-reports rather than adult proxy reports alone.

Indexed as

informant discrepancymultitrait–multimethodpeer victimizationresponse surface analysisschool belongingschool healthschool safetystudent well-beingTIMSS

Identifiers

PMID42737005
PMCPMC13565373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.