MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3136261122

The Role of Protective Factors in Relation to Attentional Abilities in Emerging Adults

2021· article· en· W3136261122 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanya Sagar

Notice bibliographique

RevueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRelation (database)PsychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Attention is a multifaceted concept, broadly defined as prioritizing and selective focusing on specific facets of incoming information. Research on abilities across the attentional spectrum has been limited from a clinical perspective, with the largest body of research on attention and the functional consequences of attentional problems focused on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Using ADHD as a framework for understanding attentional abilities across a wide spectrum, the current set of three studies aimed to explore the functional consequences associated with lower levels of attention ability, as well as factors that could protect against poorer outcomes. These variables were examined within the context of emerging adulthood (ages 18-29) in higher education settings, and University of Windsor and Ryerson University undergraduate students were recruited to serve as participants for all three studies. Data was collected via surveys and analyzed using multiple regression. Study 1 examined the relation between attentional abilities and academic performance in emerging adults. Hypotheses included: (1) there would be a negative relation between level of inattention and academic performance, and (2) the use of academic supports, social supports, and wellness practices would moderate that relation. The results showed that higher levels of inattention predicted lower grade point averages (GPA). Goal efficacy emerged as a protective factor and mediated the relation between level of inattention and GPA across all levels of attentional ability. Study 2 examined the relation between attentional abilities and social functioning. Hypotheses included: (1) there would be a negative relation between level of inattention and social functioning, and (2) higher levels of self-esteem, structured style, and emotional stability would moderate the relation between level of inattention and social functioning. The results showed that higher levels of inattention predicted lower levels of social functioning. Goal efficacy again emerged as a protective factor, as did prioritizing and planning behaviour. Both factors buffered against the effects of inattention on social functioning across all levels of attentional ability. Study 3 examined the relation between attentional abilities and legal outcomes. Hypotheses included: (1) there would be a positive relation between level of inattention and level of engagement in unlawful activity; (2) increased levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would moderate the relation between level of inattention and level of engagement in unlawful activity; and, (3) use of wellness practices would moderate the relation between level of inattention and level of engagement in unlawful activity. The results showed that higher levels of inattention were related to greater involvement in criminal activity. Agreeableness emerged as a protective factor, with higher levels buffering against criminal involvement for individuals with higher levels of inattention. Finally, an overall score relating to engagement in wellness practices protected against criminal involvement for individuals with higher levels of inattention. Overall, modifiable protective factors, namely self-efficacy, aspects of executive functioning, agreeableness, and wellness practices, emerged across all three studies. The results suggest that emerging adults across the spectrum of attentional abilities could benefit from the development and fostering of factors such as self-efficacy, which may buffer against the poor outcomes related to higher levels of inattention.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,255
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Même sujetAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderTravaux en français237 207