Does knowledge about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder impact teachers' reported behaviors and perceptions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study surveyed elementary school teachers in Melbourne, Australia to investigate their knowledge about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and its impact on their reported behavior toward and perceptions of children with ADHD. Consistent with previous international findings, teachers demonstrated good overall knowledge about ADHD, with strengths in knowledge of symptoms/diagnosis and weaknesses in knowledge of causes and treatments. To investigate how knowledge impacted reported behaviors and perceptions, teachers also read vignettes of children with ADHD symptoms and rated their reactions to these children. In general, teachers with high, and to some extent average, knowledge about ADHD reported more helpful behaviors (e.g., help-seeking for their students) and perceptions (e.g., perceive the benefit of behavioral and educational treatments). However, teachers with high and average knowledge also predicted that these children would be more disruptive in the classroom, and reported having less confidence in their ability to manage these children. Implications and need for future research 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".