MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113518087 · doi:10.1080/2372966x.2020.1838233

The Association Between Child ADHD Symptoms and Changes in Parental Involvement in Kindergarten Children’s Learning During COVID-19

2020· article· en· W3113518087 on OpenAlexaff
Moira Wendel, Tessa Ritchie, Maria Rogers, Julia Ogg, Alecia M. Santuzzi, Elizabeth C. Shelleby, Kellie Menter

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Psychology Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImpulsivityDevelopmental psychologyContext (archaeology)ModerationAssociation (psychology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Attention deficit hyperactivity disorderClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus pandemic 2019 (COVID-19) changed the context of schooling for both parents and their children. Learning at home presents new challenges for parents of young children and particularly for parents of children with behavior difficulties, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. The current study examined changes to parent and child behavior due to COVID-19 among 4- and 5-year-old children and their parents. Changes in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and levels of parental involvement in children's learning were examined. ADHD symptoms were also examined as a moderator of changes in parent involvement. Data were collected prior to COVID-19 and several months after school closures. Results indicated that parents' ratings of their children's ADHD symptoms increased from prior to COVID-19 to during COVID-19. There were few changes to parents' educational involvement; however, parents' beliefs about their responsibility to be involved in their children's learning changed differentially according to child gender.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Psychology ReviewSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207