Motor Correlates of ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether the likelihood of motor impairment in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) increases with the presence of other disorders, and whether the co-occurring diagnoses of reading disability (RD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) account for the motor deficits seen in ADHD. A total of 291 children (218 boys, 73 girls) participated. Six groups of children were compared: ADHD only (n = 29); RD only (n = 63); ADHD and RD (n = 47); ADHD and ODD (n = 19); ADHD, RD, and ODD (n = 21); and typically developing control children (n = 112). Motor skills were assessed with the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and the Beery Test of Visual-Motor Integration. We found that the motor skills of the ADHD-only group did not differ from the typical control group. Furthermore, motor impairment in ADHD increased as a function of co-occurring disorders, and the presence of RD rather than ADHD predicted motor impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".