MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097271217 · doi:10.1177/1087054715612261

Explicit and Implicit Positive Illusory Bias in Children With ADHD

2015· article· en· W2097271217 on OpenAlexaff
Christina C. Emeh, Amori Yee Mikami, Bethany A. Teachman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyImplicit-association testDevelopmental psychologyCompetence (human resources)PerceptionImplicit attitudeAssociation (psychology)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Children with ADHD overestimate their own social and behavioral competence when using explicit self-report measures, a phenomenon known as Positive Illusory Bias (PIB). This study examined whether children with ADHD show PIB when self-perceptions are measured implicitly, reflecting associations that are relatively difficult to consciously control. METHOD: Participants were 23 children (ages 6.8-9.8) with ADHD and 55 typically developing (TD) children. Children's explicit self-perceptions of competence were measured via self-report on the Self-Perception Profile for Children; their implicit associations were assessed using an Implicit Association Test. Parent and teacher ratings formed an adult-reported composite indicator of children's competence, to which children's self-perceptions were compared. RESULTS: Children with ADHD overestimated their competence as compared with adult-informant reports on both explicit and implicit measures, whereas TD children tended to be accurate. CONCLUSION: Inflated self-perceptions in children with ADHD may exist on an implicit level outside of conscious awareness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207