34 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Emotion Regulation, and Executive Functioning Associated with Educational and Occupational Outcomes in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: While attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, including inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, are normally distributed within the population, features of ADHD have been associated with poor functional outcomes across various domains of life, such as academic achievement and occupational status. However, some individuals with even strong ADHD features show normal or above-average success within these functional domains. Executive dysfunction and emotion regulation abilities are associated with educational attainment and occupational status and may therefore explain some of the heterogeneity in functional outcomes in individuals with mild, moderate, and high levels of ADHD symptoms. In this study, we investigated whether emotion regulation strategy use (i.e., emotion suppression or cognitive reappraisal) and executive function abilities moderate the relationship between ADHD symptoms and occupational status and education attainment in adults. Participants and Methods: Data were collected from 109 adults aged 18 - 85 (M = 38.08, SD = 15.54; 70.6% female) from the Nathan Kline Institute Rockland Sample. All participants completed measures of ADHD symptoms (Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale), emotion regulation strategy use (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire), and executive functioning (composite scores of inhibition, shifting and fluency from the standardized Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System). In this study, executive function abilities and emotion regulation strategy use were tested as potential moderators of the relationship between ADHD symptoms and functional outcomes using hierarchical regression models. Results: Several two- and three-way interactions predicting occupational status and educational attainment were observed. Education attainment was predicted by hyperactivity and reappraisal (ß = -0.26, p = .006); inattention, shifting, and reappraisal (ß = -0.52, p = .029); inattention, shifting, and suppression (ß = -0.40, p = .049); inattention, fluency, and reappraisal (ß = 0.24, p = .038); hyperactivity, fluency, and reappraisal (ß = 0.27, p = .034); and impulsivity, fluency, and reappraisal (ß = 0.44, p = .004). Occupational status was predicted by inattention and reappraisal, (ß = -0.27, p = .032), hyperactivity and reappraisal (ß = -0.26, p = .004); and impulsivity, fluency, and reappraisal (ß = 0.35, p = .031). Fluency was positively associated with educational attainment when controlling for inattention and impulsivity. Conclusions: Consistent with the hypothesis, the association between ADHD symptoms and both occupational status and educational attainment were moderated by the interaction between emotion regulation strategy use, executive function abilities domains. The observed interactions suggest that both occupational status and educational attainment may depend heavily on one’s intrinsic abilities and traits. Contrary to previous literature, we found no evidence that ADHD symptoms, emotional regulation strategies were independently associated with either educational attainment or occupational status, but this should be validated in a sample with greater representation of adults with clinically significant ADHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".