Developmental processes in peer problems of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD: Developmental cascades and vicious cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the developmental processes involved in peer problems among children (M age = 10.41 years) previously diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at study entry (N = 536) and a comparison group (N = 284). Participants were followed over a 6-year period ranging from middle childhood to adolescence. At four assessment periods, measures of aggression, social skills, positive illusory biases (in the social and behavioral domains), and peer rejection were assessed. Results indicated that children from the ADHD group exhibited difficulties in each of these areas at the first assessment. Moreover, there were vicious cycles among problems over time. For example, peer rejection was related to impaired social skills, which in turn predicted later peer rejection. Problems also tended to spill over into other areas, which in turn compromised functioning in additional areas across development, leading to cascading effects over time. The findings held even when controlling for age and were similar for males and females, the ADHD and comparison groups, and among ADHD treatment groups. The results suggest that the peer problems among children with and without ADHD may reflect similar processes; however, children with ADHD exhibit greater difficulties negotiating important developmental tasks. Implications for interventions are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".