Health‐related quality of life and peer relationships in adolescents with developmental coordination disorder and attention‐deficit–hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and peer relationships were investigated in adolescents with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Adolescents with DCD (n=9), ADHD (n=9), DCD and ADHD (n=10), and typically developing adolescents (n=16) completed the following questionnaires: KIDSCREEN-52 Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire and Peer Relations Questionnaire for Children. Twenty-five participants took part in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Adolescents with DCD and ADHD had lower HRQoL on the mood and emotions, school environment, and financial resources scales of the KIDSCREEN-52 than adolescents in the DCD and typically developing groups (all p<0.05). On the Peer Relations Questionnaire for Children, the DCD and ADHD group reported significantly higher victimization compared with those in the typically developing (p=0.030) and DCD (p=0.010) groups. Qualitative interviews among young people with DCD and ADHD revealed feelings of marginalization and victimization. Descriptors such as 'misfits', 'oddballs', 'weird', and 'the rejects' were used to describe themselves. INTERPRETATION: HRQoL and peer relationships are negatively affected in adolescents with DCD and ADHD. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS?: Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) do not display poorer overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) versus typically developing controls. Having DCD and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with poorer HRQoL. Adolescents with DCD and ADHD experience significantly higher levels of peer victimization than typically developing adolescents. HRQoL and peer relationships are significantly associated in adolescent respondents.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".