Evidence for a General Factor Model of ADHD in Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine factor structures of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) symptoms of ADHD in adults. METHOD: Two sets of models were tested: (a) models with inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity as separate but correlated latent constructs and (b) hierarchical general factor models with a general factor for all symptoms and separate specific factors for inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Participants were 751 adults with ADHD. Two models with correlated factors and two general factor models of ADHD symptoms were tested. RESULTS: The general factor model provided a better fit of the data than the correlated models. The general factor model with one general and three (inattention, motoric, and verbal hyperactivity/impulsivity) specific factors best accounted for the adults' symptoms. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a unitary component to ADHD symptoms as well as dimensional specific factors. The replication of a general factor in adults suggests continuity of symptom presentation from childhood into adulthood. Clinical implications are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it