↓ Skip to main content

Is Parent–Child Disagreement on Child Anxiety Explained by Differences in Measurement Properties? An Examination of Measurement Invariance Across Informants and Time

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is Parent–Child Disagreement on Child Anxiety Explained by Differences in Measurement Properties? An Examination of Measurement Invariance Across Informants and Time
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01295
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas M. Olino, Megan Finsaas, Lea R. Dougherty, Daniel N. Klein

Abstract

There are numerous empirical studies demonstrating that agreement between parent-reports of youth and youth self-reports of internalizing behavior problems is modest at best. This has spurred much research on factors that influence the magnitude of associations between informants, including individual difference characteristics of the informants and contexts through which individuals interact with the child. There is also tremendous interest in understanding symptom trajectories longitudinally. However, each of these lines of work are predicated on the assumptions that the psychometric construct that is being assessed from each informant and at each measurement occasion is the same. This study examined measurement invariance between maternal and child reports and longitudinally across ages 9 and 12 on five dimensions of anxiety using the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders (SCARED; Birmaher et al., 1999). No cross-informant models for anxiety dimensions achieved acceptable fit and at least partial metric and scalar invariance. Moreover, few longitudinal models demonstrated acceptable fit and at least partial metric and scalar invariance. Thus, using the SCARED as an example, these results show that inter-informant agreement may be compromised by different item functioning, and highlight the need for testing invariance before using measures for longitudinal tracking of symptoms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 53%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#16,077,455
of 25,418,993 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#17,035
of 34,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,402
of 340,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#487
of 721 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,418,993 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 721 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.