Perceived Social Acceptance and Peer Status Differentially Predict Adjustment in Youth With and Without ADHD
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: This study extends previous research and examined if the longitudinal relation between self-perceived social acceptance and changes in adjustment was moderated by peer status and ADHD diagnosis. METHOD: A sample of children with ADHD and a normative comparison group (age 8-13 years) were assessed at baseline and one-year follow-up. Self-perceived social acceptance, peer status, and three areas of adjustment (depression symptoms, aggression/conduct problems, and social skills) were measured. RESULTS: Moderation was found when predicting depression symptoms and aggression/conduct problems. Specifically, in children with ADHD only, higher perceived social acceptance protected against increases in depression symptoms for those with lower peer preference, but predicted greater aggression/conduct problems for those with higher peer preference. There was not evidence of significant moderation for predicting social skills; instead non-ADHD status, greater peer preference, and greater self-perceived social acceptance were each predictive of greater social skills. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the complex association between positive social self-perceptions and adjustment for children with ADHD and caution against a universal assumption that high self-perceptions are adaptive.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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