Psychiatric Features and Parenting Stress Profiles of Subtypes of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Results from a Clinically Referred Taiwanese Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study attempts to evaluate whether there are attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) subtype differences regarding psychiatric features, comorbidity pattern and parenting stress profiles in an Asian population. METHODS: A total of 182 ADHD children and their primary caretakers recruited from a university-affiliated hospital were surveyed. Subjects were two groups of preadolescent (6 to 12 years old) ADHD children: children with ADHD-inattentive subtype (n=58) and ADHD-combined subtype (n=124). Various information was collected and compared, including the child's characteristics (current age, gender, number of family members, age at ADHD diagnosis, duration of pharmaceutical intervention, psychiatric comorbidities, and intelligence quotient); the primary caretaker's characteristics, and profiles obtained with the Parenting Stress Index (PSI). RESULTS: Group comparison showed that these two subtypes were statistically distinguishable from each other in total scores on the PSI, four subscale scores on the PSI, the child's age at diagnosis, and comorbidity profiles (all p<.05). Parents of children of the combined subtype experienced higher parenting stress and felt their children displayed qualities that made it difficult for them to fulfill their parenting roles. School failure (p=.001) and anxiety disorders (p=.022) were significantly more prevalent in the inattentive subtype children, while oppositional defiant disorder was significantly more present in the combined subtype children (p=.000). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings supported the cross-cultural equivalence of the nosological distinction in ADHD subtypes. The need for specific clinical intervention according to the subtype difference was stressed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".