{"title":"Meta-analysis of the implied distribution of callous-unemotional traits across sampling methods and informant","authors":"Arthur Kary, Caroline Moul","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Callous-unemotional (CU) traits have been measured in a variety of sample-types (e.g., community or forensic) and from the perspective of different informants (e.g., self-report or parent-report) using the inventory of callous-unemotional traits total score (ICU-T). Although the positive association between CU traits and antisocial behavior is uncontroversial, the degree to which sample-types are different from each other has received little attention despite such knowledge being important for generalization and interpretation of research findings. To address this gap in the literature, we estimated the implied distribution of the ICU-T across sample-types, informants, and their interaction using meta-analytic models of sample means and variances. In unconditional models, we found that sample-type significantly moderated mean ICU-T scores but not variance, while informant significantly moderated the variance of ICU-T scores but not means. There was also a significant interaction between sample-type and informant. Mean parent-reported ICU-T scores were significantly lower than self-reported scores in community samples, but not significantly different in samples with elevated levels of antisocial behavior. Implications of our findings include improved research efficiency, the need for different ICU-T norms across informants, and greater understanding of informant biases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 102407"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582400028X/pdfft?md5=51eecee716c1f5e8b195d9a009ba45fa&pid=1-s2.0-S027273582400028X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582400028X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Callous-unemotional (CU) traits have been measured in a variety of sample-types (e.g., community or forensic) and from the perspective of different informants (e.g., self-report or parent-report) using the inventory of callous-unemotional traits total score (ICU-T). Although the positive association between CU traits and antisocial behavior is uncontroversial, the degree to which sample-types are different from each other has received little attention despite such knowledge being important for generalization and interpretation of research findings. To address this gap in the literature, we estimated the implied distribution of the ICU-T across sample-types, informants, and their interaction using meta-analytic models of sample means and variances. In unconditional models, we found that sample-type significantly moderated mean ICU-T scores but not variance, while informant significantly moderated the variance of ICU-T scores but not means. There was also a significant interaction between sample-type and informant. Mean parent-reported ICU-T scores were significantly lower than self-reported scores in community samples, but not significantly different in samples with elevated levels of antisocial behavior. Implications of our findings include improved research efficiency, the need for different ICU-T norms across informants, and greater understanding of informant biases.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.