MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018416286 · doi:10.1177/1087054712441831

The Influence of Parent Behaviors on Positive Illusory Bias in Children With ADHD

2012· article· en· W2018416286 on OpenAlexafffund
Christina C. Emeh, Amori Yee Mikami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPraisePsychological interventionCompetence (human resources)Social competenceClinical psychologySocial changeSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between parental feedback and the accuracy of children's self-perceptions. Children with ADHD have been demonstrated to overestimate their own competence, a phenomenon known as positive illusory bias (PIB). METHOD: Participants were families of 56 children (41 male) ages 7 to 10, half of whom had clinical diagnoses of ADHD. PIB was assessed by comparing children's self-ratings of their competence relative to teachers' ratings. Laboratory interactions were observed where parental feedback to children was coded. RESULTS: Parental warmth was associated with lower PIB about social competence in children with ADHD, but greater PIB in comparison children. Parent criticism was positively correlated with greater PIB about social competence in children with ADHD, but the relationship was nonsignificant for comparison children. Parent praise was associated with lower PIB about behavioral conduct in comparison children. CONCLUSION: Results support the self-protective hypothesis of PIB, and implications for 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207