Do Adolescents With ADHD Have a Self-Perception Bias for Their ADHD Symptoms and Impairment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the self-perception bias (SPB) in adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The SPB was defined as adolescent underestimation of their learning and behavior problems in comparison to parent- or teacher-reports or a standardized achievement test. The sample comprised 74 adolescents, ages 13 to 18 (40 ADHD; 34 comparison). Compared to adolescents without ADHD, adolescents with ADHD underreported their symptoms and impairment when parent-reports, but not teacher-reports were the indicator of performance. Adolescents with ADHD, however, reported more difficulties in all areas of functioning than adolescents without ADHD. In the sample of adolescents with ADHD, self- and parent-reports of learning problems, but not teacher-reports, were significantly associated with adolescent total academic achievement test score. Adolescents with learning problems as measured by the achievement test, and social problems as rated by parents, reported higher levels of these difficulties than adolescents whose functioning was in the average range; however, adolescents with clinical levels of oppositional behaviors, as rated by parents or teachers, did not report elevated levels of these behaviors. Depressive symptoms were associated with a lower SPB. Implications of these findings for psychologists’ use of self-report measures with adolescents with ADHD are discussed.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".