THE RENCONTRES FOCUS: OUTCOMES OF A LEARNING AND STUDY SKILLS BASED PROGRAM FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate studies require good organizational, planning and time management skills.As several studies showed, students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have weaker learning and study strategies than students without ADHD (Gormley, DuPaul, Weyandt, & Anastopoulos, 2016;Reaser, Prevatt, Petscher, & Proctor, 2007).Some universities have therefore implemented support measures for those students.In Quebec (Canada), Landry (2012) developed the Rencontres FOCUS, which aim to enhance learning and study skills.This study evaluated the effects of the Rencontres FOCUS on the learning and study strategies of thirteen undergraduate students with ADHD (six men and seven women, Mage= 29.2 years).The French version of the Learning and Study Strategy Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein and Palmer, 2002) was used to evaluate participants' study skills.Dependent t-tests compared the pre and post-intervention scores.Participants significantly improve on Anxiety, Concentration, Selecting Main Ideas and Test Strategy subscales with a moderate to large size effect.However, results indicate that the participants remain below the 50 th percentile of the LASSI.This suggests that, despite their progress, those students have to continue to improve their study skills.The results also reveal that the Rencontres FOCUS seems relevant for the development of study strategies for students with 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".