Exploring the relationship between ADHD, its common comorbidities, and their relationship to organizational skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting numerous executive functioning skills, such as organizational skills. While the relationship between the inattention aspect of ADHD and poor organizational skills is well documented, it is still unclear if lower organizational skills are only associated with ADHD or if they are also associated with other comorbid disorders commonly diagnosed in conjunction with ADHD. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the relationship between organizational skills and ADHD in adults, as well as the impact of comorbid disorders on ADHD in relation to organizational skills. METHODS: = 201 with a diagnosis of ADHD) adults from the general population were recruited online. Participants completed a measure of organizational skills, measures assessing levels of ADHD, depression, and anxiety, and extensive demographic information related to their diagnosis of ADHD or other possible diagnosis. RESULTS: Participants with a diagnosis of ADHD were significantly more likely to have a comorbid diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety. Organizational skills were significantly lower in individuals who reported having received a diagnosis of ADHD, but not in those with a past diagnosis of depression and anxiety. However, organizational skills were lower in individuals currently experiencing higher levels of depression and anxiety. The results of regression analyses suggest that levels of organizational skills are most strongly predicted by inattention and more weakly predicted by comorbid disorders. DISCUSSION: These results highlight the centrality of organizational skills deficit in ADHD as well as the influence of the inattention component over other components commonly observed in ADHD on organizational skills. Suggestions for treatment of ADHD in adults 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".