Implications of Parental Affiliate Stigma in Families of Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined parents' perceptions/awareness and internalization of public courtesy stigma (affiliate stigma) about their children's inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms, and associations between parental affiliate stigma, parental negativity expressed toward the child, and child social functioning. Participants were families of 63 children (ages 6-10; 42 boys) with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, assessed in a cross-sectional design. After statistical control of children's severity of inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms (as reported by parents and teachers), parents' self-reports of greater affiliate stigma were associated with more observed negative parenting. The associations between high parental affiliate stigma and children's poorer adult informant-rated social skills and greater observed aggression were partially mediated by increased parental negativity. As well, the positive association between children's adult informant-rated aggressive behavior and parental negativity was partially mediated by parents' increased affiliate stigma. Parental affiliate stigma about their children's inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms may have negative ramifications for parent-child interactions and children's social functioning. Clinical implications for parent training interventions 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 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".