Summer Camp for Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Naturalistic Context for Enhancing Social Competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) experience difficulties in social competence (Ros & Graziano, 2018). Social difficulties in adolescents with ADHD have been tied to poor long-term outcomes and are predictive of global impairment (Morris et al., 2020). Summer camp programs have been overlooked as an opportunity for social growth and development. Evidence suggests that specialized summer camp with social skills training may have positive outcomes on social competence development in adolescents with ADHD (Pelham et al., 2010; Sibley et al., 2011, 2012). The current study investigated changes in social competence of adolescents with ADHD within a specialized social skills summer camp for children and adolescents with ADHD. The present study included a sample of 60 adolescents with ADHD between the ages of 12 and 16 years old and 15 camp counsellors. The Social-Emotional Assets and Resiliency Scales- Adolescent (SEARS-A) and Parent (SEARS-P) report were used to measure social competence. Overall, the present study demonstrated that adolescents with ADHD have significantly lower social competence when compared to a normative sample of adolescents. The study also confirmed that adolescents with ADHD improve their social competence after attending a specialized summer camp as demonstrated by higher social competence scores at the end of camp. Finally, the current study found similar scores between counsellor ratings of adolescent’s social competence and adolescent ratings of social competence. In conclusion, specialized summer camp programs may be an innovative, cost effective, and generalizable method to support social competence growth in adolescents 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".