Effectiveness of a Therapeutic Summer Camp for Children With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 2-week therapeutic summer day camp for children with ADHD, which included a social skills training program and parent psychoeducation and training program. This was an open-label, nonrandomized Phase I Clinical Intervention Trial. METHOD: Parents completed the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (WFIRS) and the Conners' Global Index-Parent Version (CGI-P), and children completed the Index of Peer Relations (IPR). All questionnaires were completed prior to the camp and 3 weeks after starting school. A total of 33 children who attended the camp were compared with a group of 15 children with ADHD who did not attend camp. RESULTS: CGI-P, IPR, and WFIRS significantly improved in the group that attended the camp but not in the control group. Effect sizes were between 0.7 and 1.6. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic summer day camp is effective in improving ADHD symptoms, peer relationships, and overall functioning of children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".