Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Dialectical Behavior Therapy Group Skills Training for ADHD Among College Students
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: ADHD affects between 2% and 8% of college students and is associated with broad functional impairment. No prior randomized controlled trials with this population have been published. The present study is a pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) group skills training adapted for college students with ADHD. METHOD: Thirty-three undergraduates with ADHD between ages 18 and 24 were randomized to receive either DBT group skills training or skills handouts during an 8-week intervention phase. ADHD symptoms, executive functioning (EF), and related outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Participants receiving DBT group skills training showed greater treatment response rates (59-65% vs. 19-25%) and clinical recovery rates (53-59% vs. 6-13%) on ADHD symptoms and EF, and greater improvements in quality of life. CONCLUSION: DBT group skills training may be efficacious, acceptable, and feasible for treating ADHD among college students. A larger randomized trial is needed for further evaluation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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