MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393012179 · doi:10.1177/10870547241239148

Longitudinal Associations Between Symptoms of ADHD and Life Success: From Emerging Adulthood to Early Middle Adulthood

2024· article· en· W4393012179 on OpenAlexaff
Colin T. Henning, Laura J. Summerfeldt, James D. A. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivityPsychologyYoung adultEarly adulthoodTraitRating scaleClinical psychologyLife satisfactionLongitudinal studyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To expand on current adult ADHD literature by investigating the stability of ADHD symptomatology (i.e., inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity) across a 15-year period (from emerging adulthood to early middle adulthood) and the relative contributions of ADHD symptomatology to life success. METHOD: A sample of 320 post-secondary students was initially assessed for ADHD symptomatology using the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS). Fifteen years later, participants were re-assessed using the CAARS and several measures of life success (e.g., relationship satisfaction, career satisfaction, and stress levels). RESULTS: Inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms showed strong stability across the 15-year period. Additionally, inattention symptoms during emerging adulthood and early middle adulthood were consistently associated with poorer life success (i.e., lower relationship and career satisfaction), particularly for men. Associations for hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms were less consistent. CONCLUSION: ADHD symptomatology can be conceptualized as a stable, dimensional trait across adulthood, with important impacts on life success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207