WISC-III third factor indexes learning problems but not Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to examine the clinical utility of the WISC-III third factor—"Freedom From Distractibility" (FFD)-in the diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and the contribution of behavioral, academic, and language variables to the factor. Method: 275 children, referred for attention, behavior, and learning difficulties, and 26 normal comparison children completed the WISC-III, subtests from the Wide Range Achievement Test-3, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. Parents and teachers completed DSM-IV-based rating scales. Results from the study showed that a child's FFD score was not a valid diagnostic indicator of either ADHD or subtype of ADHD. FFD scores were associated primarily with arithmetic and receptive language scores, implicating verbal working memory. Conclusion: Low FFD scores may signal learning problems, particularly with arithmetic, language, and working memory that may contribute to poor academic performance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".