Contributions of Friends’ Problem Behaviors to Friendship Quality in a Sample of Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is often assumed that children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) experience friendship difficulties because of their own problem behaviors. However, friendships are dyadic relationships between two children. This study sought to understand the incremental contributions of friends' problem behaviors to dyadic friendship quality in a clinically diagnosed sample of children with ADHD. METHOD: One hundred and sixty-five dyads consisting of a target child with ADHD and social impairment (age 6-11; 67% male; 72% white) and a reciprocated, real-life friend were recruited. Parents and teachers rated the ADHD symptom severity, externalizing problems, and callous-unemotional (CU) traits of target children and friends. Friendship quality in the dyad was measured with: (a) questionnaires independently completed by target children, their parents, their friends, and the parents of their friends; and (b) observations of child-friend interactions. RESULTS: The severity of ADHD symptoms and externalizing problems (but not CU traits) in target children was associated with more negative friendship quality reported on questionnaires. Adjusting for the corresponding problem behavior in target children, each type of friends' problem behaviors incrementally predicted less positive friendship quality (on questionnaires). Friends' ADHD symptoms and CU traits also incrementally predicted more negative friendship quality (on questionnaires and observations). CONCLUSIONS: Considering problem behaviors in friends of children with ADHD (in addition to those in children with ADHD) may be important for identifying dyads at risk for lower quality friendships. These findings could possibly lead to new directions when designing and evaluating treatments targeting the friendship problems of children with ADHD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".