A Family-Centered Approach to Planning and Measuring the Outcome of Interventions for Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses a set of closely related parenting and family factors that should be considered when planning and measuring the outcome of interventions for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These include parenting and parent-child relationships, parental cognitions, parental adjustment, marital interactions, general family relationships, and adaptive child functioning within the family. The measurement of each construct is discussed, and comparative, longitudinal, and treatment outcome studies using these measures are reviewed. It is concluded that measures of treatment outcome for children with ADHD could be improved by utilizing multiple informants, developing tools with greater content and contextual validity, relying more on observational methods, and identifying those measures which are of greatest importance to families. Given the multiple pathways via which both psychosocial and pharmacological interventions exert their influence, composite measures combining multi-informant, multimethod constructs may represent more useful measures of treatment outcome than measures of primary ADHD symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".