Peer Review #1 of "The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): utility in college students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): utility in college students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity DisorderBackground.The number of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) enrolled in colleges and universities has increased markedly over the past few decades, giving rise to questions about how best to document symptoms and impairment in the postsecondary setting.The aim of the present study was to investigate the utility and psychometric properties of a widely-used rating scale for adults with ADHD, the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-V1.1), in a sample of post-secondary students with ADHD. Methods.A total of 135 college students (mean age = 24, 42% males) with ADHD were recruited from Student Disability Services in post-secondary institutions.We compared informant responses on the ASRS administered via different modalities.First, student's selfreport was ascertained using the ASRS Screener administered via telephone interview, in which they were asked to provide real-life examples of behavior for each of the six items.Next, students self-reported symptoms on the 18-item paper version of the ASRS Symptom Checklist administered about 1 to 2 weeks later, and a collateral report using an online version of the 18-item ASRS Symptom Checklist.Students also completed self-report measures of everyday cognitive failure (CFQ) and executive functioning (BDEFS).Results. Results revealed moderate to good congruency between the 18-item ASRS-Self and ASRS-Collateral reports (correlation = .47),and between student self-report on the 6-item telephone-based and paper-versions of the ASRS, with the paper-version administered two weeks later (correlation = .66).The full ASRS self-report was related to impairment, such as in executive functioning (correlation = .63)and everyday cognitive failure (correlation = .74).Executive functioning was the only significant predictor of ASRS total scores.Discussion.Current findings suggest that the ASRS provides an easy-to-use, reliable, and cost-effective approach for gathering information about current symptoms of ADHD in college and university students.Collateral reports were moderately related to self-reports, although we note the difficulty in obtaining informant reports for this population.Use of a telephone
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.012 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.214 | 0.114 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".