MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068237287 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.3.382

Self-Perceptions of Competence in Children With ADHD and Comparison Children.

2004· article· en· W2068237287 on OpenAlexaff
Betsy Hoza, Alyson C. Gerdes, Stephen P. Hinshaw, L. Eugene Arnold, William E. Pelham, Brooke S. G. Molina, Howard Abikoff, Jeffery N. Epstein, Laurence L. Greenhill, Lily Hechtman, Carol Odbert, James M. Swanson, Timothy Wigal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyCompetence (human resources)PerceptionAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyComorbidityNormativeClinical psychologyAttention deficitPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The self-perceptions of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 487) were compared with those of children in a local normative comparison group (n = 287), relative to teacher- and parent-rated perceptions of their competence. Children were participants in the ongoing follow-up portion of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD. Children with ADHD were much more likely than comparison children to overestimate their competence relative to adult report, regardless of who was used as the criterion rater (teacher, mother, or father). Examination by comorbidity subgroups revealed that children with ADHD inflated their self-perceptions the most in domains of greatest deficit. Gender effects also are reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations336
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207