MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076986263 · doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.581620

Patterns and Predictors of Adolescent Academic Achievement and Performance in a Sample of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

2011· article· en· W2076986263 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua M. Langberg, Brooke S. G. Molina, L. Eugene Arnold, Jeffery N. Epstein, Mekibib Altaye, Stephen P. Hinshaw, James M. Swanson, Timothy Wigal, Lily Hechtman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Drug AbuseU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsPsychologyAcademic achievementAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderMediationClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyConduct disorderAttention deficit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined predictors of academic achievement, measured by standardized test scores, and performance, measured by school grades, in adolescents (Mn age = 16.8) who met diagnostic criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)-Combined type in early childhood (Mn age = 8.5; N = 579). Several mediation models were also tested to determine whether ADHD medication use, receipt of special education services, classroom performance, homework completion, or homework management mediated the relationship between symptoms of ADHD and academic outcomes. Childhood predictors of adolescent achievement differed from those for performance. Classroom performance and homework management mediated the relationship between symptoms of inattention and academic outcomes.

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)0.003
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations156
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207