Agreement between parent and child report of quality of life in children with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little information in the research literature of agreement between parent and child in reports of child quality of life (QOL) for a sample of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim of our study was to determine whether parent and child concordance is greater for physical domains of QOL than for psychosocial domains; whether parents rate their child's QOL better or poorer than their child's ratings; and whether concordance is related to demographic, socioeconomic or clinical factors. METHODS: The study was a questionnaire survey of children aged 10-17 referred to the ADHD clinic and diagnosed with ADHD in the province of British Columbia (Canada) between November 2001 and October 2002 and their parent. RESULTS: Fifty-eight children diagnosed with ADHD and their parents completed our study questionnaire. The main outcome measure was the Child Health Questionnaire, which permitted comparisons on eight QOL domains and one single item. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for five domains (range from 0.40 to 0.51), and good for three domains (range from 0.60 to 0.75). Children rated their QOL significantly better than their parents in four areas and poorer in one. Standardized Response Means indicated clinically important differences in mean scores for Behaviour and Self-esteem. Compared with population norms, across most domains, children with ADHD reported comparable health. Discrepancies between parent-child ratings were related to the presence of a comorbid oppositional/defiant disorder, a psychosocial stressor and increased ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although self-report is an important means of eliciting QOL data, in children with ADHD, given the discrepancies in this study between parent and child report, measuring both perspectives seems appropriate.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".