Assessing multitasking in children with ADHD using a modified Six Elements Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was designed to investigate whether children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) demonstrate a deficit in multitasking, measured by their performance on a modified Six Elements Test designed for use with children (C-SET). The C-SET was administered to 38 children, aged 7-13. The subjects comprised two groups: an ADHD sample (n = 19) and a community control sample (n = 19). The results show that the ADHD group performed significantly worse on the C-SET, in that they attempted fewer tasks than the control group. However, they did not commit more rule breaks. These findings suggest that children with ADHD did not have problems with retrospective memory, as they were as able to remember the rules as the control group. Rather, the ADHD children appeared to have a specific deficit in monitoring their ongoing behaviors and generating useful strategies for task completion, as indicated by the decreased number of tasks attempted compared to the control group. The number of tasks tried on the C-SET correlated significantly with a measure of working memory, but not with a measure of response inhibition. C-SET total tasks tried also correlated with all subscales of the Conner's Parent Rating Scale-Revised (Short Version). The C-SET appears to be a useful measure of rule-governed multitasking behavior in children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".