Maternal ADHD Symptoms and Parenting Stress: The Roles of Parenting Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Neuroticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ADHD symptoms in adults are consistently related to stress in a variety of domains, although whether the link between ADHD symptoms and stress is direct, or accounted for or moderated by other variables, is little studied. We used a cross-sectional design to examine whether parenting self-efficacy accounts for the relation between maternal ADHD symptoms and parenting stress, and whether levels of maternal neuroticism moderate this relation. METHOD: A nonclinical sample of mothers of 120, six- to 12-year-old children completed surveys online. RESULTS: Maternal ADHD symptoms were associated with parenting stress, but this relation was accounted for by parenting self-efficacy beliefs. Neuroticism did not moderate the relations among these variables. Covariate analyses indicated that although parenting self-efficacy beliefs remain a robust predictor of parenting stress, the relation between maternal ADHD symptoms and parenting stress can be better accounted for by other variables. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the importance of self-efficacy beliefs and demonstrate that ADHD symptoms are not sufficient to understand the experience of parenting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".