Are the Performance Overestimates Given by Boys With ADHD Self-Protective?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tested the self-protective hypothesis that boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) overestimate their performance to protect a positive self-image. We examined the impact of performance feedback on the social and academic performance self-perceptions of 45 boys with and 43 boys without ADHD ages 7 to 12. Consistent with the self-protective hypothesis, positive feedback led to increases in social performance estimates in boys without ADHD but to decreases in estimates given by boys with ADHD. This suggests that boys with ADHD can give more realistic self-appraisals when their self-image has been bolstered. In addition, social performance estimates in boys with ADHD were correlated with measures of self-esteem and positive presentation bias. In contrast, for academic performance estimates, boys in both groups increased their performance estimates after receiving positive versus average or no feedback, and estimates were not correlated with self-esteem or social desirability for boys with ADHD. We conclude that the self-protective hypothesis can account for social performance overestimations given by boys with ADHD but that other factors may better account for their academic performance overestimates.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".