Co-occurrence of ADHD and motor problems in children: The impact on quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although ≈ 50 % of children with ADHD present with co-occurring symptoms consistent with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), few studies have considered the impact of co-occurring ADHD+DCD on quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to (1) disentangle the respective impact of inattentive and motor symptoms on QoL in children; (2) explore if the co-occurrence of atypical motor skill (i.e., DCD) and ADHD presents a greater risk to QoL than either disorder in isolation; and (3) clarify if the profile of QoL alters based on parent- compared to child-report. METHODS: Participants were 28 children presenting with ADHD, 16 with DCD, 26 with ADHD+DCD, and 60 controls aged 5-14 years. Parent- and child-report 'Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory' (PedsQL) measured overall QoL across physical, emotional, social, and school domains. RESULTS: Results broadly demonstrated that children with ADHD and DCD showed comparable reductions in QoL, regardless of report-type. Children with ADHD and DCD alone demonstrated lower QoL than neurotypical children. Further, those with co-occurring ADHD+DCD often presented with lower QoL than children with either ADHD or DCD in isolation, though this effect was select to parent-report. Only partial concordance was observed for parent- and child-report within groups. CONCLUSIONS: While supporting earlier reports of compromised QoL in children with ADHD and DCD, our work also provides clear evidence that the negative impact of DCD on QoL is comparable to that of ADHD. Further, our work extends prior accounts by demonstrating the potential cumulative impact of co-occurring ADHD+DCD on QoL. Lastly, our findings show that parent- and child-reports offer unique perspectives on QoL in children with and without neurodevelopmental conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".