Peer victimization in children with Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study explored peer victimization in 9‐ to 14‐year‐old children with and without Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The sample comprised 104 children, 52 of whom had a previous ADHD diagnosis. Children with ADHD had higher overall rates of self‐reported victimization by peers and parent‐ and teacher‐reported bullying behavior than did children without ADHD. The rates of victimization were especially high for girls with ADHD. Furthermore, children with ADHD reported higher frequencies of verbal, physical, and relational victimization than did children without ADHD. When data were pooled from children, parents, and teachers, children with ADHD were categorized as victims, bullies, and bully/victims significantly more often than were children without ADHD. Parent ratings of ADHD symptoms predicted self‐reported victimization by peers. Neither parent‐rated anxious‐shy behaviors nor parent‐ and teacher‐rated social skills predicted victimization by peers over and above ADHD symptoms. Parent ratings of oppositional behavior mediated the relationship between ADHD symptoms and parent‐ and teacher‐rated bullying. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".