Basic Psychological Needs of Undergraduate Students with and without High ADHD Symptomatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-established in research that students who experience attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomatology experience academic difficulties. Despite an influx of research on this population, there is still an opportunity to improve the relevant supports and resources necessary to facilitate academic success. The current study examined whether post-secondary students with high (ADHD) symptomatology perceived their classrooms as less autonomy-supportive than post-secondary students without high levels of ADHD symptomatology. A case-control design was used for this study. Participants were undergraduate students with high levels of ADHD symptomatology (n = 49) and without (n = 39) from a large Canadian university. A multivariate Hotelling T2 test was used to compare groups on their self-reported perceptions of basic psychological needs (BPN). College students with high ADHD symptomatology reported less relatedness at school (d = 0.69), but greater levels of competence (d = 0.70). Students with high ADHD symptomatology in this study reported significantly more negative relationships at school than students without high ADHD symptomatology. However, those with high ADHD symptomatology in this sample may represent a higher functioning subset of individuals with high ADHD symptomatology. The results of this study suggest additional avenues that can be explored to develop and implement evidence-based academic resources that can provide students with high ADHD symptomatology relevant skills.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".