Evaluating the Program of Parents Behavioral Training and Cognitive Training Effect- the Child's Behavior on Decreasing the Symptoms of Deficit Attention Disorder/Hyperactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficit attention disorder/hyperactivity is one of the most popular psychiatric disorders in childhood. The aim of this study was evaluating and comparing the program of parent's behavioral training and cognitive training effect- The child's behavior on decreasing the symptoms of deficit attention disorder/hyperactivity of 8 to 12 years old children in Yazd city.This study is quasi-experimental and the research plan is multi-group pre-test - post-test with control group. The research sample consisted of 47 persons. Thus, the behavioral parent training group was replaced 17 persons, cognitive behavioral experimental group 15 persons and 15 persons control group.Data showed that parent's behavioral training has effect on decreasing the symptoms of deficit attention disorder/hyperactivity of 8 to 12 years olds children but child's behavior cognitive training doesn’t have effect on decreasing the symptoms of deficit attention disorder/hyperactivity.According to the research result which shows the efficiency of parent's behavioral training method than child's behavior cognitive training on decreasing the symptoms of deficit attention disorder/hyperactivity. It seems that using this training method is effective and can be suggested for reducing the symptoms of this disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".