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 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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".