The Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Psychological Distress in Canadian Adults With ADD/ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and psychological distress in individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder (ADD)/ADHD. METHOD: This correlational study encompasses cross-sectional data from 488 male and female adults (20-64 years) who reported that they have been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD. Psychological distress was measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). RESULTS: Adults with ADD/ADHD and high incomes have significantly lower K10 scores than Canadians with ADD/ADHD and low incomes. Income, but not education, was significant in predicting psychological distress among the sample. Canadian adults with ADD/ADHD have an increased risk for developing psychological distress and comorbid psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that negative outcomes associated with ADD/ADHD are not necessarily pervasive. High income may serve as a protective factor for psychological distress among adults with ADD/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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".