Do Children With Comorbid Reading and Mathematics Difficulties Experience More Internalizing Problems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether children with comorbid reading (RD) and mathematics (MD) difficulties experience more internalizing problems (anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and social withdrawal) than children without comorbidity. In addition, we examined whether any significant group differences are due to differences between groups in attention. Thirty-three Canadian children with RD (51.5% female; M age = 10.80 years), 35 with MD (60.0% female; M age = 10.79 years), 37 with comorbid RDMD (45.9% female; M age = 10.79 years), and 42 chronological-age (CA) controls (64.3% female; M age = 10.82 years) were assessed on reading, mathematics, general cognitive ability, and attention tasks. Their teachers also rated their anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and social withdrawal. Results of analyses of variance showed that children with comorbid RDMD exhibited significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression compared only to the CA controls. However, after controlling for attention, these group differences were no longer significant. These findings suggest that children with comorbid RDMD may be at greater risk for anxiety and depression, although attention difficulties likely contribute to these differences.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".