Parental ADHD symptoms and self-reports of positive parenting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2 studies, we tested whether parental attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms are associated with self-reports of more positive parenting, even after accounting for observed positive parenting behaviors. METHOD: In Study 1, 96 mothers with sons 8-11 years of age participated; 44% of the boys were diagnosed with ADHD. The majority of mothers and sons were European Caucasian. In Study 2, 48 parents (24 mother-father pairs) with children 6-12 years of age participated. All children in Study 2 were diagnosed with ADHD, and 75% of the children were boys. More than 90% of the families were Caucasian. In both studies, parents self-reported on their positive parenting, and positive parenting was observed in parent-child interactions. RESULTS: In models including relevant demographic variables, other parental psychopathologies, and both inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms, parents with higher levels of hyperactive/impulsive symptoms self-reported engaging in significantly more positive parenting behaviors than were observed. Parental inattentive symptoms were not uniquely associated with self-reports of positive parenting. This pattern was found for both mothers and fathers, and across families with and without children diagnosed with ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that high levels of parental ADHD symptoms may be associated with over-estimation of positive parenting behaviors. Reasons for the distinction between the types of ADHD symptoms associated with higher self-reports of positive parenting and the clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".