Children with Autism and Attention Difficulties: A Pilot Study of the Association between Sensory, Motor, and Adaptive Behaviors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study aimed to compare sensory processing, motor skills and adaptive behaviors in children with a double diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (ASD+ADHD) with children with ADHD alone and to examine the association of sensory processing and motor skills with adaptive behaviors (self-care). METHOD: Thirty children aged 5-14 years diagnosed with ASD+ADHD (n = 13) or ADHD (n = 17) were evaluated on their sensory processing and motor skills and adaptive behaviors. Analysis of covariance compared the groups on these dimensions. Correlation analyses examined the association between sensory processing and motor skills and adaptive behaviors. RESULTS: Compared to children with ADHD alone, children with ASD+ADHD had poorer skills in sensory processing (p < 0.001), motor (p = 0.001) and adaptive behaviors (p < 0.001). For all children, increased autonomy in self-care was correlated with better sensory processing (p < 0.001) and motor skills (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Children with ASD+ADHD have poorer sensory processing, motor and adaptive skills than those with ADHD alone. Sensory processing and motor deficits were negatively associated with autonomy in self-care. Interventions aiming to improve sensory processing and motor skills and autonomy in self-care should become important targets for these children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".