Use of Self-Ratings in the Assessment of Symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to determine if adults can provide a true rating of their own childhood and current symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: The authors conducted two studies. In study 1, 50 adult subjects completed a questionnaire assessing their ADHD symptoms in childhood. In addition, a parent of each subject completed a questionnaire rating the subject's childhood ADHD symptoms. In study 2, 100 adult subjects completed a questionnaire rating their own current ADHD symptoms. The subject's partner also completed a questionnaire rating the subject's current ADHD symptoms. The correlation between subject and observer ratings was measured in each study. Inattentive symptoms, hyperactive-impulsive symptoms, and total symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: Good correlations were found between subject and observer scores in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of ADHD in adults relies on an accurate recall of childhood behavior and an accurate account of current behavior. The results of this study suggest that adults can give a true account of their childhood and current symptoms of ADHD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".