One measure, one meaning: Multiple measures, clearer meaning

Abstract

This paper tries to make three points. First, current constructs in personality and psychopathology are based on the restrictive evidence contained in self-reports. As a result, heterogeneous categories of individuals are assigned to the same category. Second, it is suggested that when different sources of evidence are included, theoretically distinct groups will be detected within the prior heterogeneous category. Third, the authors argue that physiological information has the potential to parse individuals with similar phenotypes on self-report data into distinct groups that reveal the temperamental origins of their phenotype.

Improving screening for externalizing behavior problems in very young children : applications of item response theory to evaluate instruments in pediatric primary care.

“…Throughout a research program targeting the evaluation of temperament and its role in development, Kagan (e.g., 1992Kagan (e.g., , 1997Kagan et al, 1998;Kagan et al, 2002) has emphasized the importance of considering combinations of child-level factors with family, peer, and social-environmental characteristics in the developmental pathway to later behavioral profiles.…”

“…Use of reliable and valid standardized instruments has been shown to improve the accuracy of screening for externalizing behavior problems in children (L. G. Hill et al, 2004). While limitations of parent-completed reports of behavioral symptoms have been identified (e.g., Kagan et al, 2002), use of such measures as screening tools, rather than diagnostic instruments, may be valuable. Such systematic screening could be helpful in improving the early identification of children in need of intervention in primary care, facilitating referrals to behavioral or mental health services provided by social workers and other mental health professionals.…”

“…While the convenience of using single version forms in a pediatric primary care setting is appealing, the utility of scale items for measuring behavioral concerns which may present differently in very young children is unknown. The developmental context of behavioral problems for preschool-aged children may influence the measurement performance of any such tool in important ways (Kagan et al, 2002).…”

“…Social injustices and health disparities are perpetuated by such biases. Further, inherent differences in children who experience similar clustering of behavioral symptoms may affect the quality of measurement offered by screening instruments (Kagan et al, 2002).…”

“…These include low empathy (Cohen & Strayer, 1996;Eisenberg et al, 1996;Miller & Eisenberg, 1988); innate temperament (Bates, Pettit, Dodge, & Ridge, 1998;Guerin, Gottfried, & Thomas, 1997;Kagan, 1992;Kagan et al, 1998); daring and impulsivity (Farrington & Hawkins, 1991); weaknesses in executive functioning and inhibitory control processes (Oosterlaan, Logan, & Sergeant, 1998); biased social processing, such as a tendency to interpret others' intentions as hostile (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995;Hudley & Graham, 1993); deficits in moral reasoning and social problem solving (Rubin, Moller, & Emptage, 1987); lowered heart rate and dampened heart rate variability (Mezzacappa et al, 1997); low birth weight (U.S. DHHS, 1999); prenatal exposure to alcohol, drugs, or cigarette smoke (Brennan, Grekin, & Mednick, 1999;Brown et al, 1991;Coles et al, 1991); and possible genetic influences suggested by twin studies (Cyphers, Phillips, Fulker, & Mrazek, 1990; Edelbrock, Rende, Plomin, & 21 Thompson, 1995). Child-level factors alone are insufficient indicators of risk, however.Throughout a research program targeting the evaluation of temperament and its role in development, Kagan (e.g., 1992Kagan (e.g., , 1997Kagan et al, 1998;Kagan et al, 2002) has emphasized the importance of considering combinations of child-level factors with family, peer, and social-environmental characteristics in the developmental pathway to later behavioral profiles.Family factors considered to heighten risk include poor parental responsiveness and engagement (Shaw, Keenan, & Vondra, 1994;van den Boom, 1994); young maternal age (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1993); poor maternal attachment in infancy (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985;Shaw, Owens, Vondra, & Winslow, 1996); hostile or rejecting parent behavior (Belsky, Hsieh, & Crnic, 1998;Shaw et al, 1998); harsh and inconsistent discipline …”