Inattention, working memory, and academic achievement in adolescents referred for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the role of inattention and working memory in predicting academic achievement in 145 adolescents aged 13 to 18 referred for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Path analysis was used to examine whether auditory-verbal and visual-spatial working memory would mediate the relationships between classroom inattention symptoms and achievement outcomes. Results provide support for the mediational model. Behavioral inattention significantly predicted both auditory-verbal and visual-spatial working memory performance. Auditory-verbal working memory was strongly associated with adolescents' achievement in reading and mathematics, while visual-spatial working memory was only associated with achievement in mathematics. The path from inattention symptoms to reading was partially mediated by the working memory variables, but the path from inattention to mathematics was not mediated by working memory. The proposed model demonstrated a good fit to the data and explained a substantial amount of variance in the adolescents' achievement outcomes. These findings imply that working memory is a risk factor for academic failure for adolescents with attentional problems.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it