Follow-Up of Young Adults With ADHD in the MTA: Design and Methods for Qualitative Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Qualitative interviews with 183 young adults (YA) in the follow-up of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With and Without ADHD (MTA) provide rich information on beliefs and expectations regarding ADHD, life's turning points, medication use, and substance use (SU). METHOD: Participants from four MTA sites were sampled to include those with persistent and atypically high SU, and a local normative comparison group (LNCG). Respondents were encouraged to "tell their story" about their lives, using a semistructured conversational interview format. RESULTS: Interviews were reliably coded for interview topics. ADHD youth more often desisted from SU because of seeing others going down wrong paths due to SU. Narratives revealed very diverse accounts and explanations for SU-ADHD influences. CONCLUSION: Qualitative methods captured the perspectives of YAs regarding using substances. This information is essential for improving resilience models in drug prevention and treatment programs and for treatment development for this at-risk population.
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 | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".