Types of Noncompliance in Boys with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder with and Without Oppositional Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined both the frequency and type of non-compliant behavior in 14 boys with co-occurring Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant (OD) behavior, 24 boys with only ADHD, and 33 nonproblem boys. Mothers rated boys' noncompliant behavior on the Response Style Questionnaire (RSQ) and observers coded noncompliance during mother-son interactions. Boys with ADHD and OD behavior were noncompliant more frequently compared to boys with ADHD alone, and both groups differed from nonproblem boys. Most importantly, the types of noncompliance displayed by the ADHD/OD and ADHD boys differed. On the RSQ, mothers rated boys with ADHD/OD as having higher levels of unskilled noncompliance (i.e., covert/sneaky, overt/confrontational, emotionally labile) and lower levels of more skilled noncompliance (i.e., verbally skilled, emotionally regulated) compared to both ADHD and nonproblem boys. The observational measure focused on unskilled noncompliance and yielded a similar pattern of results, although the differences between the ADHD/OD and ADHD alone groups were not statistically significant. It is suggested that taking into account both the quantity and quality of child noncompliance may provide important information about the development of antisocial behavior in children.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".