Suspicion of ADHD by teachers in relation to their perception of students’ cognitive capacities: do cognitively strong students escape verdict?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers play a crucial role in the diagnostic process of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in students: They are often the first to identify ADHD-related behaviors in children and to signal them to parents. Research has demonstrated that the recognition and labeling of certain behaviors as evidential for ADHD by teachers vary with respect to student characteristics. This study examines if and how the association between teacher perception of students' ADHD-related behaviors and teacher suspicion of ADHD in students is moderated by teacher perception of students' cognitive capacities. Multilevel analysis was carried out on data collected in 2017 and 2018 from 939 students and 108 teachers in 15 Flemish (Belgium) and 16 Quebec (Canada) schools in the context of a collaborative research project on ADHD-prevalence and identification. Results show that, when teachers perceive ADHD-related behaviors in students, they more readily suspect ADHD when students are cognitively stronger. This study suggests that teachers are more inclined to free cognitively stronger students from the blame of ADHD-related behaviors by administering them an ADHD-label.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".