Validity of the Brown ADD Scales: An investigation in a predominantly inattentive ADHD adolescent sample with and without reading disabilities
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
The Brown ADD Scale for Adolescents is widely used in clinical settings, yet, no published studies have investigated divergent and concurrent validity and specificity and sensitivity to inattentive ADHD symptomatology. Ninety-eight participants (13 to 16 years) were classified as ADHD/I and/or reading disabled (RD) using Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia (K-SADS), Conners' Rating Scales (CRS-R), and Ontario Child Health Study Scales (OCHSS), WRAT3, and WRMT-R. The results were: 29 ADHD/I; 12 RD, 16 ADHD/I with RD; and, 41 controls. The RD group was included to evaluate specificity. The Brown was administered but not used in classification. The ADHD groups scored higher on the Brown subscales compared with the other two groups. The recommended cutoffs resulted in high rates of false negatives but few false positives; this suggests good specificity but poor sensitivity. There were moderate correlations among the Brown, CRS-R, and OCHSS. The Brown can be useful in screening out ADHD; however, its low sensitivity precludes its usefulness in diagnosing 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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