Creativity in the Predominantly Inattentive and Combined Presentations of ADHD in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: ADHD and its associated inhibition deficits might promote creativity. However, results in the literature are conflicting, possibly due to the heterogeneity of ADHD. To control for this heterogeneity, creativity, and inhibition were investigated in the predominantly inattentive (ADHD-I) and combined (ADHD-C) presentations. Method: Participants were males/females aged 18 to 51, diagnosed with ADHD-I ( n = 21), ADHD-C ( n = 19), or without ADHD ( n = 43). Self-rated Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale and evaluator-rated figural Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) were used for measuring creativity, Stroop task for inhibition, and Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales for ADHD symptoms. Results: The ADHD-C group reported higher self-rated creativity than other groups and made more original drawings paired to more abstract titles in the figural TTCT than controls. Conclusion: ADHD-C participants were the most creative. This result was more importantly associated with higher degrees of ADHD symptoms rather than poorer inhibition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".