0962 Sleep and Daytime Functioning in Gifted and Twice Exceptional Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Gifted (G) children display an asynchrony between intellectual development and social and emotional development. Twice exceptional (2e) children are G children with a neuropsychological disability. We compared the sleep and daytime behavior of G, 2e and typically developing (TD) children and we sought for group-specific relationships between sleep and daytime behavior. Methods 23 children were recruited: seven G (8.7 years old, SD = 1.7), six 2e (9.8 years old, SD = 1.8) and 10 TD children (10.0 years old, SD = 2.2). Giftedness was diagnosed with neuropsychological tools. The Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ) assessed sleep quality, the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) assessed daytime functioning. Sleep quality and its impact on daytime functioning was measured with a MANCOVA, with the CBCL’s three main factors as dependent variables (internalizing problems, IP; externalizing problems, EP and total problems, TP), children group as the independent variable and the CSHQ total score as the covariate. Results G, 2e and TD groups scored 39.86, 39.17 and 39.70 on the CSHQ, respectively (n.s.). The three groups were not different on the CBCL, with respective mean T scores of 57.86, 50.33 and 48.60 for IP, 56.43, 55.67 and 47.80 for EP and 55.29, 53.83 and 46.40 for TP. Pillai’s trace statistics disclosed a significant relationship between CSHQ and CBCL scores regardless of groups (p = 0.04) but the influence of sleep quality did not differ among the groups for any of the three factors. The CSHQ total score was positively and significantly related to IP (p = 0.03, r = 0.47); relationships were not significant for EP (p = 0.96, r = -0.01) and TP (p = 0.17, r = 0.31). Conclusion Sleep quality influences internalizing problems in children, without group-specific relationships, but this association does not seem to differ between gifted, twice exceptional and TD children. Support N/A
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".