MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969781238 · doi:10.1177/1087054719869834

Executive Functioning Rating Scale as a Screening Tool for ADHD: Independent Validation of the BDEFS-CA

2019· article· en· W2969781238 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda O’Brien, Lynette Renee Kivisto, Shanna Deasley, Joseph E. Casey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRating scaleDiscriminant validityConfirmatory factor analysisConcurrent validityClinical psychologyReceiver operating characteristicConstruct validityTest validityPredictive validityExecutive functionsScale (ratio)Criterion validityAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsPsychiatryCognitionStructural equation modelingMedicineInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study provides independent examination of the validity of the Barkley Deficits of Executive Functioning Scale–Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA) in a sample of children diagnosed with ADHD ( n = 50) and typically developing controls ( n = 50). Method: Parents of participants completed the BDEFS-CA and the Conners 3 rating scales. Validity of BDEFS-CA was examined using a confirmatory factor analysis, correlational analyses with Conners 3 ratings, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Results: Findings support the construct, concurrent, and discriminant validity of the BDEFS-CA in a mixed sample. Conclusion: Findings provide independent examination of the validity of the BDEFS-CA as a measure of executive dysfunction and a screening tool for ADHD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207