MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126031016 · doi:10.1177/002221940003300503

The IQs of Children with ADHD Are Normally Distributed

2000· article· en· W2126031016 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleIntelligence quotientDevelopmental psychologyWechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenReading (process)VocabularyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether or not attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-when there was an absence of reading problems-was associated with having a high IQ. The vocabulary and block design short forms of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition were administered to 63 children with ADHD, 69 children with reading difficulties (RD), and 68 children with comorbid ADHD + RD. Results indicated that the distributions of estimated Full Scale IQs (FSIQ) for each of the three groups of children did not differ significantly from a normal distribution, with the majority of children (more than 50%) in each group scoring in the average range. The percentage of children with ADHD who scored in the above-average range for FSIQ was not significantly higher than the percentages of children in the other two groups. No significant group differences emerged for estimated FSIQ, vocabulary, or block design. It was concluded that children with ADHD are no more likely to have an above-average IQ than are other 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.

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)0.001
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.260 · 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