Targeting Peer Contagion Dynamics in Children with ADHD: Effects from a Two-Site Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Parental Friendship Coaching (PFC) teaches parents to coach their children in friendship skills. This paper examines whether PFC fosters positive peer contagion processes (i.e. dyadic mutuality) and reduces negative peer contagion processes (i.e. coercive joining) within the friendships of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Participants were 134 families of children with ADHD and peer problems (age 6-11 years; 69% male; 72% white) at two Canadian sites, randomized to PFC or CARE (an active comparison intervention). Children were observed in the lab at baseline, post-treatment, and at 8-month follow-up during cooperation and competition tasks with a real-life friend. Amount and reciprocity of dyadic mutuality indicators (i.e. positive affect and positive behaviors) and coercive joining indicators (i.e. aggressive, controlling, and rule-breaking behaviors) between friends were coded. RESULTS: Across treatment conditions, children showed an increase in the amount of dyadic mutuality during cooperation and a decrease in the amount of coercive joining during competition over time. Relative to CARE, PFC induced a reduced amount of coercive joining behaviors during cooperation at post-treatment and follow-up. However, PFC led to decreases in the reciprocity of positive affect during cooperation at post-treatment and to increases in the reciprocity of coercive joining during competition at follow-up relative to CARE. Moderation analyses suggest PFC was associated with better outcomes for children with externalizing comorbidity, and for those with a stable or a best friend. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of transactional processes, contextual differences, externalizing comorbidities, and friendship status when assessing the efficacy of PFC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".