The IQs of Children with ADHD Are Normally Distributed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".