Feasibility of an ultra-brief group cognitive behavioral skills workshops for organization, time management, and planning strategies in university students: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: University students with ADHD and executive functioning challenges are at a higher risk of experiencing academic and functional challenges. Group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) targeting organization, time management, and planning skills have shown promise in improving attention and academic functioning. However, attendance and logistic barriers may limit participation in traditional programs. This feasibility study aims to adapt and evaluate the feasibility of delivering ultra-brief, group CBT skills workshops (both in-person and online) to university students. METHODS: A non-randomized pilot design with a convergent mixed-method approach will be used. From January 2024 to April 2025, 40-60 French-speaking students from Canadian postsecondary institutions that are experiencing attentional or executive challenges (with or without a formal ADHD diagnosis) will be recruited. The intervention consists of three weekly 90-min workshops, with strategies focusing on organization, time management, planning and prioritizing tasks, and managing procrastination. Data will be collected at pre- and post-workshop interventions including recruitment and retention rates, as well as standardized questionnaires assessing treatment perception, acceptability, and satisfaction (primary outcomes), along with ADHD symptoms, executive functioning, and functional impairment (secondary outcomes). Individual interviews (baseline evaluation) and focus groups (post-workshop evaluation) will further explore participants' functioning as well as expectations and experiences related to the intervention. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, whereas qualitative data will undergo qualitative descriptive analysis using rapid assessment procedure (RAP) sheets. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the "feasibility of ultra-brief CBT skills workshops for university students with ADHD and executive functioning difficulties. If effective, it could inform scalable strategies to support academic success and daily functioning. Findings will also inform the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention for future large-scale studies.
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 | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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".