Executive Functioning Predicts Academic But Not Social Adjustment to University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Adjusting well academically and socially has been associated with enhanced academic performance and student retention. The purpose of this study was to examine subthreshold levels of ADHD symptoms such as inattention, hyperactivity, and executive functioning as potential predictors of academic and social adjustment in a healthy sample of university students. Method: Participants were 135 undergraduate university students who completed self-report questionnaires. Results: Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that metacognition (an aspect of executive function), gender, and age were significant predictors of academic adjustment beyond hyperactivity, inattention, and depression. Depression was the only significant predictor of social adjustment. Conclusion: The BASC–College form may identify depression symptoms predictive of social adjustment, but symptoms of inattention or hyperactivity are not sufficiently sensitive to predict academic adjustment. Measures of executive function that include metacognition such as the BRIEF-A may be most promising in identifying skills predictive of academic adjustment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".