Positive Illusions? The Accuracy of Academic Self-Appraisals in Adolescents With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) overestimate their academic competencies (AC) relative to performance and informant indicators (i.e., positive illusory bias; PIB). Do adolescents with ADHD exhibit this PIB and does it render self-views inaccurate? We examined the magnitude of the AC-PIB in adolescents with and without ADHD, the predictive accuracy of parent and adolescent AC ratings, and whether executive functions (EF) predict the AC-PIB. METHOD: Adolescents (49 ADHD; 47 typically developing) completed math and EF tests, and self-rated their AC. Parents rated their adolescents' AC and EF. RESULTS: Adolescents with ADHD performed more poorly on the math task (vs. comparison group) but had a larger AC-PIB relative to parents' ratings. EFs predicted the PIB within the full sample. Adolescents' AC ratings, regardless of ADHD status, were more predictive of math performance than their parents' AC ratings. CONCLUSION: Adolescents with ADHD appear self-aware in their AC despite a modest PIB; nuanced self-appraisals may depend on EFs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".