Executive Function Impairments in Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Do They Differ between School and Home Environments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to compare parent and teacher reports of executive function (EF), as measured by the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), on a sample of children who had been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). If differences were found, the secondary purpose was to explore these differences by determining which of the 8 BRIEF scales, each representing a different EF, would best predict symptoms of ADHD by the 2 proxy reporters. METHOD: We performed a secondary data analysis on the assessment information pertaining to 240 children, aged 5 to 15 years, accessing services at an urban Toronto psychiatric program specializing in ADHD. We compared parent and teacher ratings and applied logistical binary regressions to predict the probability of a child's meeting the criteria for clinically significant inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV. RESULTS: As expected, teachers reported more variety and severity of EF impairments than did parents. In addition, teachers used inhibition, organization of materials, and planning and organizing as predictors of ADHD symptoms, whereas parents relied predominantly on inhibition, working memory, and planning and organizing as the risk factors. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the current theory, EF impairments, particularly in inhibition, appear to underlie the behavioural manifestation of ADHD. However, parents and teachers do not always agree when reporting EF impairments at home and in school. Thus information from both types of informants is essential for understanding and treating children with this disorder.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".