The psychosocial functioning of children and spouses of adults with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear what the impact of parental ADHD is on the day-to-day life of the rest of the family and how it contributes to the intergenerational transmission of this disorder. METHOD: The psychosocial functioning of 23 spouses and 63 children of 33 families with an ADHD parent and 20 spouses and 40 children of 26 comparison families was examined. Both adults and their spouses were assessed for lifetime and current Axis I and Axis II diagnoses, present general psychiatric symptoms and their marital relationships. Children were screened for ADHD and other problems, using the C-DISC, CBLC, TRF and the Social Adjustment Inventory. RESULTS: Children with an ADHD parent had higher rates of psychopathology than those from comparison families. Children with ADHD had more co-morbidities than non-ADHD children. Family and marital functions were impaired in ADHD families regardless of the gender of the affected parent. Children without ADHD from families with one psychiatrically healthy parent did well while the behaviour of children with ADHD was always poor and not associated with parental mental health. CONCLUSION: The results underscore the strong genetic contribution to ADHD and the need to carefully assess the non-ADHD parent as they seem to influence the well-being of non-ADHD children in families with an ADHD parent.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".