Language and reading in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder + developmental language disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The current study sought to examine whether psycholinguistic assessments could discriminate children and adolescents with developmental language disorder (DLD) from those with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; combined or inattentive subtype) and comorbid DLD + ADHD. Methods The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Screening Test (CELFST; Wiig et al., 2013), the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (nonword repetition subtest; Wagner et al., 2013), and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (sight word and phonemic decoding subtests; Torgesen et al., 2012) were examined in 441 children and adolescents between 6 and 16 years of age. Results The presence of a language disorder (with or without ADHD) predicted poor performance across tasks. Children and adolescents with ADHD (combined vs. inattentive) only significantly differed in sight word reading, in favor of those with combined type. Measures of reading efficiency could distinguish between the two types of ADHD, but not between other groups. Interestingly, scores on the standard language screener were no worse for children with ADHD + DLD than children with DLD only. Conclusions The combination of comorbid ADHD + DLD did not appear to be associated with lower language abilities, sight word reading, or phonemic decoding relative to DLD alone. Reading efficiency was effective in discriminating between ADHD subtypes. These findings offer valuable insights into differential diagnosis and the identification of comorbidity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".