Youth Perceptions of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Barriers to Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to gain information about how youth with ADHD perceive this disorder and the barriers to treatment. Six focus groups were conducted in three locations within Nova Scotia (two of each: elementary school students, middle school students, high school students). Qualitative data was collected from 25 youth (aged 10 to 21) diagnosed with ADHD. Data analysis conducted through Ethnograph software revealed several themes: (a) participants did not perceive ADHD in a positive light; (b) youth recognized the need for intervention and identified school supports as particularly important; (c) youth reported both benefits and negative effects of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; and (d) youth with ADHD perceived that the general public is misinformed about ADHD, which contributes to social stigma and stereotyping. The results have implications for school psychologists, who are in an ideal position to help demystify ADHD and to facilitate the collaboration between the youth, parents, and teachers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".