Distracted, hyperactive, and thriving: factors supporting everyday functioning in adults with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using a strengths-based framework, the present study sought to identify protective personal and social characteristics associated with functional ability among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Sixty-four adults with ADHD (19-80 years old) completed self-report measures of everyday functioning, psychiatric symptoms, personality, social support, and coping strategies. Conscientious and extraverted personality traits, adaptive coping strategies, positive childhood experiences and available social support were investigated as potential protective factors supporting everyday functioning through partial correlation analyses adjusting for ADHD symptom severity and comorbid symptoms of depression and anxiety. Significant correlates were tested as modifiers of ADHD-related functional impairments in moderated regression models. RESULTS: Multiple significant correlations were found between functional impairment and each of the personality and social characteristics of interest. Positive childhood experiences and emotion-focused coping strategies were linked to better community functioning, and positive childhood experiences were also linked to better sexual functioning. Forms of tangible, belonging and self-esteem support were associated with better functioning in social and sexual relationships, as well as with overall functional ability. None of these factors moderated the association between ADHD symptom severity and overall functioning, indicating that the functional advantages of social support were observed regardless of the severity levels of ADHD symptoms or functional impairment. CONCLUSION: Higher ratings of social support were linked to better functioning across many life domains independent of ADHD symptom severity, suggesting that all people with ADHD - even those with relatively low symptoms - may thrive from the development of enhanced social connections. These conclusions need to be strengthened by supportive longitudinal evidence, as it is likely that many of these associations are bi-directional.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".