{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02262443438914027, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.08, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Maladjustment and socio-cognitive problem solving: the validity of quantitative and qualitative assessment.

General socio-cognitive problem-solving deficits have become accepted as the basis for applied interventions with maladjusted children despite conflicting findings and problematic assessment procedures. This study used Kendall's deficit/distortion distinction to compare the performance of conduct disorder and non-problem boys on means-ends and optional thinking measures, using both quantitative and qualitative indices. Although quantitative problem/non-problem deficits were found, the pattern of results did not support the notion of a consistent maladjustment deficit. The nature of the qualitative differences, however, suggested a more specific role for the assessment of socio-cognitive problem solving with increased emphasis on context and problem differentiation.