MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103602733 · doi:10.1177/1087054708314605

Factor Structure of the Restricted Academic Situation Scale

2008· article· en· W2103602733 on OpenAlexaff
Sherif Karama, Leila Ben Amor, Natalie Grizenko, Antonio Ciampi, Valentin Mbékou, Marina Ter-Stepanian, Philippe Lageix, Chantal Baron, George J. Schwartz, Ridha Joober

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylphenidatePsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisPlaceboClinical psychologyDisengagement theoryRating scaleCrossover studyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryStructural equation modelingMedicineStatisticsGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To study the factor structure of the Restricted Academic Situation Scale (RASS), a psychometric tool used to assess behavior in children with ADHD, 117 boys and 21 girls meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) criteria for ADHD and aged between 6 and 12 years were recruited. Assessments were carried out before and 65 min after the administration of either a placebo or 0.25 mg/kg of methylphenidate. Placebo and methylphenidate were each administered according to a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. RESULTS: Principal component analysis, followed by a confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis, revealed two main factors for the RASS, task disengagement (TD) and motor activation (MA). Only TD was inversely correlated with age, indicating that TD and MA may be differentially modulated during development. CONCLUSIONS: MA and TD are distinct traits of ADHD. It may be important to consider them separately when conducting studies on ADHD.

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 score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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