Why can't we be friends? A narrative review of the challenges of making and keeping friends for children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative review explores the friendship characteristics of children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Previous literature on ADHD has focused on attentional, academic, and behavioral challenges. Social impairment and peer relationships in children and adolescents with ADHD have been recognized as a critical area of research. Adolescents with ADHD frequently experience clinically significant and impairing social and friendship difficulties. Despite the immense research on factors that contribute to why children and adolescents with ADHD have difficulty making and keeping friends and why friendship is especially important for youth with ADHD, to date, it has not been synthesized in a way that is comprehensive to our understanding. In this review, friendship, friendship formation, the benefits of friendship, and the features of friendship (i.e., friendship quality and stability) will be discussed. Second, the magnitude of friendship challenges faced by children and adolescents with ADHD, as well as the impact these peer difficulties have on friendship quality and stability, will be presented. Next, the dominant conceptualization of why children and adolescents with ADHD struggle to make and keep friends, which focuses on factors such as ADHD symptomatology, executive functioning, social cognition, and emotion regulation, is reported. This review will conclude with suggestions for future research and interventions that may be beneficial for ameliorating friendship difficulties among children and adolescents 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".