Emotion regulation training for adolescents with ADHD: a multiple-baseline single-case experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often experience difficulties with emotion regulation, but treatment alternatives remain limited. This study investigates the feasibility and effectiveness of a newly developed psychological intervention aiming to increase emotion regulation skills in adolescent ADHD. A single-case experimental design with multiple baselines across participants was employed. Seven girls aged 13-17 years with ADHD completed the intervention. Outcomes of feasibility included attrition and retention rates, therapist-rated adherence, homework completion and engagement with the intervention material, as well as self- and caregiver ratings of client satisfaction and adverse outcomes. Primary outcomes of emotion dysregulation included weekly self- and caregiver ratings of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form during baseline, the intervention and a follow-up period of 2 weeks. Data was analyzed through descriptive statistics, visual inspection and effect size (Tau). The intervention was deemed feasible, although homework completion and engagement between sessions proved challenging. Six adolescents and caregivers reported lower emotion dysregulation after the intervention. However, six adolescent and four caregiver ratings demonstrated improvement before the intervention during baseline, complicating determination of intervention effects. Nevertheless, four participants showed a visual and/or statistical improvement from the intervention. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the intervention may have positive effects on emotional clarity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".