Reconsidering “Inattention” in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Implications for Neuropsychological Assessment and Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) does not exist. This explicit statement needs elucidation of course given ADHD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, but it provides the reader with the impetus to reconsider long-held beliefs about this condition and its treatment. Surely, there is a disorder called ADHD from which this thesis is framed, but primary attention and hyperactivity-impulsivity problems are mediated by different albeit interrelated brain systems. Like many neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder), the medical and psychological professions have used a single, large inclusive ADHD diagnostic category to represent children with different etiologies for their overt symptoms. Despite neurobiological differences among children diagnosed with ADHD, the clinical position that attention-deficit or primary attention problems are sufficient for ADHD identification undermines clinical practice. This commonly accepted dubious position not only undermines the diagnostic utility of our neuropsychological measures, but it attenuates treatment effects as well. Supported with evidence from our ongoing ADHD research program, this data-based review will support these contentions and provide implications for diagnosis and treatment of children with attention problems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".