The ADHD vocabulary size advantage: Monolingual and bilingual young adults with ADHD have larger vocabularies than controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with ADHD and bilinguals have each been considered vulnerable to vocabulary deficits compared to their peers. However, the interaction of ADHD and bilingualism in affecting vocabulary in both languages has yet to be studied. We tested whether a 'double disadvantage' exists for bilinguals with ADHD by measuring the vocabularies of 391 young adults who spoke English and/or French. In Study 1, we categorized them into one of four groups: monolinguals and bilinguals with and without ADHD. Individuals with ADHD had larger vocabularies than those without ADHD, in monolinguals and bilinguals alike, and in both their languages. In Study 2, bilingualism and ADHD status were assessed continuously. Bilingualism and ADHD interacted in both languages such that those with greater ADHD symptomatology had larger vocabularies, particularly for monolinguals and less balanced bilinguals. These findings refute the notion of a 'double disadvantage' and instead point to an overall ADHD vocabulary advantage.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".