Psychosocial Status of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities With and Without Comorbid Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some researchers suggest that having a learning disability (LD) may act as a risk factor, increasing the likelihood that adolescents experience more negative outcomes in many areas of their lives. However, researchers have yet to examine in one study how having LD with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is related to a comprehensive set of psychosocial variables across a diverse set of domains (e.g., peer, family, school, intrapersonal). The purpose of the present study was to address that limitation by comparing the perceptions of adolescents with LD (N= 230), with comorbid LD/ADHD (N= 92), and without LD or ADHD (N= 322) regarding their academic orientation, temperament, well-being, loneliness, parental relationships, victimization, activities, and friendships. Results are consistent with the hypothesis that LD may indeed act as a risk factor increasing the likelihood of more negative outcomes. The results also indicate that for some psychosocial variables this likelihood may be increased in adolescents with comorbid LD/ADHD. The findings have important implications for stakeholders concerned about supporting adolescents with LD with and without comorbid ADHD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".