General Classroom Teachers’ Information and Perceptions of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors used survey methods to examine three sources of teachers’ ADHD information—exposure to students with ADHD, self-study, and formal ADHD training—as well as perceived teacher confidence in instructional tasks for successful inclusion of students with ADHD and perceived barriers to such instruction. Participants represented a random sample of general elementary classroom teachers in five school districts in a southeastern state (N = 365). Almost all teachers had taught at least one student diagnosed with ADHD in the last 2 years. Virtually all teachers had read at least one article, and about 60% had read a book about ADHD. Half of the teachers had received some preservice ADHD training during their education, and three fourths had received inservice training after graduation, mostly of a brief nature. Of the teachers surveyed, 94% wanted more ADHD training. Teachers expressed lowest confidence in their ability to manage stress related to instructing students with ADHD. Class size and time requirements of special interventions were rated as the greatest barriers. General education teachers should receive preservice and inservice ADHD training, including skill-based teaching, and stress management. Smaller class size and the allocation of resources are essential to ensure high-quality student education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".