Self-Stigma of Canadian Youth With ADHD and Their Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ADHD is subject to stigma from the general population. Exposure to stigma poses the risk of developing self-stigma of youth and parents, but few studies have focused on self-stigma of ADHD. Furthermore, parental factors have been implicated in self-stigma of youth, but no previous research has assessed the association between self-stigma of parents and youth. Therefore, the objective of this study was to better understand the experience of self-stigma of youth and their parents in the context of ADHD. METHOD: Fifty-five youth with ADHD (aged 8-17) and one parent reporter per youth completed surveys to report their experiences. RESULTS: The results of this study found that both youth and parents reported significantly lower self-stigma scores compared to most previously published research. Parents of boys reported higher self-stigma scores compared to parents of girls. Youth who reported higher self-stigma also reported lower self-esteem. Self-stigma scores in youth were predicted by inattentive symptoms but not hyperactive/impulsive symptoms or parental self-stigma. CONCLUSION: Results emphasize the importance of understanding self-stigma of ADHD, symptom severity, and the need for interventions for families with 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".