Talk:Callous and unemotional traits
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Medical guidelines
[edit]Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS for how to organize and source medical articles. This Dispatch is helpful in locating the correct kinds of sources (secondary reviews): Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.
This template filler is helpful in generating citations from a PubMed identified (PMID). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
POV
[edit]Here are three examples found in only one paragraph of how this article is using primary studies throughout, not secondary reviews, to assert facts and to promote a POV. Please review Wikipedia's sourcing policies on the differences between primary studies and independent reviews of those studies. Primary studies should be used rarely on Wikipedia, which reports mainly on secondary sources; see WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS for an explanation of how those are used in medical topics. This article shouldn't be using primary studies at all, and it certainly shouldn't be stating the results of studies not yet subjected to secondary reviews as fact. If you are unsure if a particular paper is a case report, comparative study, review, etc, click on the publication type in the PMID-- we should be using reviews. When searching in PubMed, you can find reviews linked in the upper right hand corner. This article needs to be completely rewritten to eliminate POV and to account for secondary reviews. It is promoting a position in DSM-5 proposals by using primary sources (studies) incorrectly.
Frick, White, PMID 18221345 is a review. Hawes PMID 19455037 is a review. The following reviews are not used:
Further, since most of this work seems to point to Frick, his opinions should be attributed inline more often.
Next, I don't see this page linked anywhere, and I am next going to remove the copy of this text. The APA is very strict about enforcing its copyright, and they do not allow even quoted text. They have approached Wikipedia in the past, leading to an examination of every article that had even WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE issues. The text needs to be carefully re-phrased, I suggest avoiding their format, and rephrasing the entire thing from scratch so that we aren't even copying their structure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I tagged some, but have made only a small dent in the inappropriate use of primary sources here; reviews are available, they should be used. If something is not in a review, it's unlikely that it belongs here. In a few instances, I also removed some irresponsible text that was cited only to primary studies, not secondary reviews of those studies. I did not finish. The article still needs stenuous review still for stigmatizing statements ("CU children"?), primary sources, and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio
[edit]This article needs to be checked for WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Because it has been severely edited since it first appeared, copyvio may have been obscured in the earlier versions. For example, this exact wording is found in a source: "These distinctions among children with CD made by the DSM-III prompted a great deal of research ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The rest of this looks ok, [1] but another set of eyes would be nice (perhaps the instance I caught is isolated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]Here is a list of review sources, courtesy of User:Dolfrog. A few other review sources are used in this article now that don't show up on this list: Callous unemotional traits. Please check the Publication Types field on the PMID when unsure. See WP:MEDRS and this Dispatch for help in negotiating PubMed and locating review sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a starting point for repairing the over-reliance on primary sources and inappropriate use of some sources in this article. This proposal (which should be used as the source it is-- a proposal, an opinion piece, not a review) says:
III. Research Basis: A systematic review of possibilities for changing the diagnostic criteria for CD in DSM-V was undertaken for the DSM-V Work Group on Disruptive Behavior Disorders. Among the eleven possible changes identified and reviewed, the addition of CU traits as a specifier was deemed to have the strongest evidence base of support (Moffitt et al. 2008). The extensive research base supporting this specifier has been summarized in several recent comprehensive reviews (Frick & Dickens, 2006; Frick & White, 2008). Thus, this section does not provide another comprehensive review of this research but instead highlights several key findings with specific relevance to diagnostic classification.
There we have mention of two recent reviews, which according to this proposal, reflect the current state of knowledge on this topic. Frick and Dickens (2006), PMID 16513044, is cited only once in this article, Frick and White (2008), PMID 18221345, is cited only three times, and Moffitt (2008), PMID 18181878, is cited only twice, and only because I just added it yesterda. The link above indicates other reviews that are not cited.
It should not be difficult to replace the primary sources in this article with secondary reviews, being sure that text reflects the secondary reviews. If the citation style changes would cease, we should be able to repair this article in short order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sandy, your pubmed query link above doesn't work, at least for me. PMID 17045726, PMID 19366941, PMID 20532864 may be of some use. Also PMID 22161938 "Störungen des Sozialverhaltens. Sind neue Erklärungsansätze eine Grundlage für eine evidenzbasierte Klassifikation und Behandlung?" doi:10.1026/0942-5403/a000076 seems on-topic, but in German. All are reviews. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Citation style changes
[edit]- Copied from User talk:Chris Capoccia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Tangential discussion
|
---|
Explanations aside, I've noted that you've been asked numerous times here on your talk to stop changing citation style; please don't do it again. Medical articles typically use the Diberri format, and your introduction of another style is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem from my perspective is that Chris_Capoccia left the references with no information what so ever, just a list of links when his bot probably failed to work. I used the recommended reference creation template using Pubmed IDs. This seems to be a completely bogus discussion from a working editors perspective and probably more about bot design. dolfrog (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I really do not understand what the problem is with list defined references. They have the advantage of reducing clutter in the edit window. Furthermore where does it say that medical articles don't use list defined references? WP:MEDMOS doesn't endorse any particular style. Restoring the list defined reference style in this article is consistent with a literal interpretation of WP:CITEVAR. Furthermore there was no consensus to change from a list defined to an embedded reference style the first time it was done nor the second time. Finally I agree that this has been enormous waste of time and I will not argue this point further. Boghog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
All refs have now been consistently reformatted with Diberri's reference tool with "Don't use et al. for author list" option turned on so that citation bot won't add add author2, author3, .... Boghog (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Moving forward with sourcing cleanup
[edit]- Furthermore, the citation style changes on this article have been a massive waste of everyone's time, since most of the sources in the article now will be replaced anyway-- they are primary sources, and the entire article can be written from about half a dozen reviews. See section above; could we please get to work on the substantive matters now? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Primary → secondary sources
[edit]As a potential aid in identifying secondary sources that can replace primary sources, below is the list of primary sources that are currently cited in this article and secondary sources that in turn cite those primary sources. Of course, we also need to carefully check that the secondary source is relevant and supports what is stated in this article. Boghog (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
List of primary and secondary sources
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proposed primary → secondary citation changes
[edit]Below are three proposed primary to secondary source substitutions.
"Children with CU traits have distinct problems in emotional and behavioral regulation that distinguish them from other antisocial youth and show more similarity to characteristics found in adult psychopathy" [non-primary source needed] (Frick_2003) → "Extending the construct of psychopathy to [ICU] youth" (Frick_2009)Done
"CU traits were more likely to engage in direct and indirect forms of bullying" [non-primary source needed](Viding_2009) → stuck on this one,however multiple independent peer reviewed primary sources (Viding_2009, Crapanzano_2010, Muñoz_2011) have observed the same association. I have added these additional sources. Done All three primary sources should be replaced in the future when a review of this work has been published.
- According to Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine: A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary. There is no fundamental difference between the introduction of peer reviewed primary source and a review article. Both summarize previous work in the field and both are peer reviewed. Muñoz_2011 reviews the earlier work of Viding_2009 and Crapanzano_2010, and hence Muñoz_2011 is a secondary source wrt to Viding_2009 and Crapanzano_2010. Boghog (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
"CU traits exhibit more severe and instrumental displays of aggression" [non-primary source needed](Frick_2005) → "children and adolescents with this more pervasive pattern of aggression have been shown to have higher rates of CU traits" (Frick_2009)Done
''They are often less sensitive to punishment cues, particularly when they are already keen for a reward" [non-primary source needed] (Fisher_Blair_1998, O'Brien_Frick_1996, Pardini_2003) → "these deficits are especially evident on tasks in which a reward-oriented response set is primed" (Frick_Dickens_2006)Done
Do these look OK? Boghog (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not so long ago I was participating on the fringes of a discussion in another place regarding Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) and at the time I created this Research paper collection from the overall discussion. Just thought it may help, you can use the "Reviews" option to select the secondary papers dolfrog (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list of refs. I will take a look. So far, the only one I am having real trouble with is Viding_2009, but as I stated above, I think we can use Muñoz_2011 for now. I must admit that psychology is way out side my area of expertise, so I would appreciate suggestions and even better, please jump in and edit the article to correct any mistakes that I have made. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just came accross this Discussion [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1503.toc Meeting Issue ‘The neurobiology of violence: implications for prevention and treatment’] August 12, 2008 table of contents. This topic is on the very fringes for me, I can find some resources and that is about it. dolfrog (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list of refs. I will take a look. So far, the only one I am having real trouble with is Viding_2009, but as I stated above, I think we can use Muñoz_2011 for now. I must admit that psychology is way out side my area of expertise, so I would appreciate suggestions and even better, please jump in and edit the article to correct any mistakes that I have made. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Parenting and fringe science
[edit]The parenting section does not reflect mainstream psychology. Child rearing practices have little to no effect on personality and mental illness prevalence. How do I tag that section? --76.180.172.75 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Cleaned out student editing
[edit]This article was entirely generated from a student editor who never returned to the article after creating a primary-sourced mess. After a year-and-a-half, I have deleted the poorly sourced text, but I suspect everything else here may still be a mess. Noting that one student edit resulted in several hundred corrections needed, and it's unclear what we are left with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've just had a new look, and the article is still full of primary sources, when secondary reviews are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Callous and unemotional traits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019204551/http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/changes%20from%20dsm-iv-tr%20to%20dsm-5.pdf to http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/changes%20from%20dsm-iv-tr%20to%20dsm-5.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Callous and unemotional traits
[edit]I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Callous and unemotional traits's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "HareNeumann2008":
- From Robert D. Hare: Hare, Robert D.; Neumann, Craig S. (2008). "Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct" (PDF). Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 4: 217–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. PMID 18370617.
{{cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=
(help) - From Psychopathy: Hare, Robert D.; Neumann, Craig S. (2008). "Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct" (PDF). Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 4 (1): 217–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. PMID 18370617. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-14.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - From Psychopathy Checklist: Hare, Robert D.; Neumann, Craig S. (2008). "Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct". Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 4 (1): 217–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. PMID 18370617.
- From History of psychopathy: Hare, Robert D.; Neumann, Craig S. (2008). "Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct" (PDF). Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 4: 217–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. PMID 18370617.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
War vs peace traits?
[edit]I am missing the evolutionary background. My lay take is that such genes and traits are useful in large scale conflicts:
German leaders like Balck and the famous Erwin Rommel provided fearless, even brutal leadership from the front, inspiring their troops to overcome their fears and push their bodies well beyond what they thought they could endure. It is worth noting, however, that French soldiers did not enjoy the same caliber of leadership...
- a sample quote from The National Interest
as opposed to peace times. Have yous found any RS analyses of these? Zezen (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- C-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- C-Class psychiatry articles
- Low-importance psychiatry articles
- Psychiatry task force articles
- Medicine articles needing infoboxes
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- Psychology articles needing infoboxes
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles