Treatment of friendship problems in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Initial results from a randomized clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a novel intervention for friendship problems in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Parental Friendship Coaching (PFC) teaches parents to coach their children in targeted friendship behaviors that are lacking in children with ADHD and that help children develop good quality friendships. METHOD: Participants were 172 families of children with ADHD and social impairment (ages 6-11; 29.7% female) at two Canadian sites, randomized to PFC or to an active comparison intervention (Coping with ADHD through Relationships and Education; CARE) to control for common therapy factors. Questionnaire and observational measures assessing primary outcomes of children's friendship quality and secondary outcomes of children's friendship behaviors were collected at baseline, posttreatment, and 8-month follow-up. RESULTS: Across both treatment conditions, children showed improvements in positive friendship quality and in friendship behaviors. Relative to CARE, PFC was associated with somewhat more positive and less negative friendship behaviors at posttreatment and follow-up, but no difference between conditions was found in friendship quality. However, moderation analyses suggested that PFC may contribute to better friendship quality among families who had previous psychosocial treatment, as well as children with comorbid externalizing disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Although PFC showed some efficacy for affecting children's friendship behaviors, these changes may not translate into friendship quality. Nevertheless, PFC may improve friendship quality for at-risk subgroups of children with ADHD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".