Perceptions of ADHD Symptoms in Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Attributions and Stigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated attributions and stigmatization self-perceptions of 40 adolescents with and 34 adolescents without ADHD for their problematic behaviors and ADHD as a disorder. Adolescents identified behaviors that they believed described them, indicated which of these behaviors was most problematic for them, and responded to a questionnaire regarding the extent to which this behavior was internally caused, controllable, pervasive, and stigmatizing. Compared to participants without ADHD, participants with ADHD endorsed more problematic behaviors including behaviors that are symptoms of ADHD, the impairment associated with ADHD, and commonly co-occurring disorders. They viewed the behavior that they identified as most problematic for them as more pervasive (stable and occurring in more contexts), uncontrollable, and stigmatizing than participants without ADHD. Adolescents with ADHD were less likely to view their most problematic behavior as pervasive and more likely to view it as stigmatizing than the disorder itself. Although adolescents with and without ADHD did not differ in the extent to which they attributed their most problematic behavior to internal causes, adolescents with ADHD were more likely to view the disorder itself as being caused by something inside them than their most problematic behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".