Comparison of the Child Behavior Checklist Profiles between Community- and Clinic-Based Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether there is a difference in the behavioural characteristics of community- and clinic-based children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Korea. METHOD: The study included 75 community-based and 72 clinic-based subjects with ADHD. The parents of all the children completed the parent versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). RESULTS: The community-based ADHD subjects scored significantly higher (P < 0.01) than clinic-based subjects in the Somatic Complaints and Delinquent Behaviour profiles of the CBCL. The community-based subjects with ADHD, combined subtype, showed significantly higher mean scores in the Somatic Complaints (P < 0.01) and Thought Problems (P < 0.05) profiles than the clinic-based subjects with ADHD, combined subtype. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest the possibility of an increased incidence of behavioural or emotional problems in community-based ADHD subjects when compared with clinic-based subjects in Korea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".