Are there distinct cognitive and motivational sub-groups of children with ADHD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is proposed to be a neuropsychologically heterogeneous disorder that encompasses two distinct sub-groups, one with executive function (EF) deficits and one with delay aversion (DA). However, such claims have often been based on studies that have operationalized neuropsychological deficits using a categorical approach - using intuitive but rather arbitrary, clinical cut-offs. The current study applied an alternative empirical approach to sub-grouping in ADHD, latent profile analysis (LPA), and attempted to validate emerging subgroups through clinically relevant correlates. METHODS: One-hundred medication-naïve children with ADHD and 96 typically developing children (6-14 years) completed nine EF and three DA tasks as well as an odor identification test. Parents and teachers provided reports of the children's behavior (ADHD and EF). Models of the latent structure of scores on EF and DA tests were contrasted using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). LPA was carried out based on factor scores from the CFA and sub-groups were compared in terms of odor identification and behavior. RESULTS: A model with one DA and two EF factors best fit the data. LPA resulted in four sub-groups that differed in terms of general level of neuropsychological performance (ranging from high to very low), odor identification, and behavior. The sub-groups did not differ in terms of the relative EF and DA performance. Results in the ADHD group were replicated in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: While EF and DA appear to be dissociable constructs; they do not yield distinct sub-groups when sub-grouping is based on a statistical approach such as LPA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".