Child Impairment and Parenting Self-Efficacy in Relation to Mothers’ Views of ADHD Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the relations of child impairment and parenting self-efficacy with parental views of the acceptability and effectiveness of behavioral, medication, and combined treatments for child ADHD. Child impairment and parenting self-efficacy were also assessed in relation to the effectiveness views of specific behavioral treatment strategies. METHOD: Ninety-five mothers of children with ADHD completed questionnaires assessing child impairment, parenting self-efficacy, perceptions of the overall acceptability and effectiveness of ADHD treatments, and views of the effectiveness of specific behavioral treatment strategies. RESULTS: Hierarchical linear modeling using child impairment and parenting self-efficacy as predictors of treatment views suggests that mothers viewed combined treatments as most acceptable and effective when their child was more impaired, and mothers with higher parenting self-efficacy rated behavioral treatment strategies as more effective. CONCLUSION: Child impairment and parenting self-efficacy are related to perceptions of the acceptability and/or effectiveness of ADHD treatments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".