The Direct Effects of Inattention and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity on Peer Problems and Mediating Roles of Prosocial and Conduct Problem Behaviors in a Community Sample of Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether children's symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity were associated with peer problems and whether these associations were mediated by conduct problems and prosocial behaviors. METHOD: A community sample of 500 children, including 245 boys and 255 girls, who ranged in age from 6 to 9 years (M = 7.6, SD = 0.91) were recruited. Teachers' report of children's inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, conduct problems, prosocial behaviors, and peer problems was collected. RESULTS: Symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity were significantly positively associated with peer problems. Conduct problems were associated with more peer problems and prosocial behaviors with less peer problems. Conduct problems and prosocial behaviors partially mediated the association between hyperactivity/impulsivity and peer problems and fully mediated the inattention-peer problems association. CONCLUSION: Findings show that prosocial behaviors and conduct problems are important variables that account for some of the negative impact of symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity on peer functioning.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".