Parental Stress and Parental Self-Efficacy in Mothers and Fathers of Intellectually Gifted/ADHD Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although scientific literature tends to suggest that intellectually gifted/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) children are particularly vulnerable to psychosocial and academic adjustment difficulties—factors contributing to parental stress—there has been no study specifically examining parental stress, and parental self-efficacy among their parents. This study aimed to further explore parental stress and self-efficacy among parents of intellectually gifted/ADHD children. Using a cross-sectional correlational design, 279 parents ( M age = 41.50; 71.32% mothers) from Quebec, Canada, of children ( n = 210; M age = 9.38; 57.20% boys) aged 6 to 16 years—with either intellectual giftedness ( n = 50), ADHD ( n = 61), both intellectual giftedness and ADHD ( n = 52), or neither ( n = 47)—completed self-report questionnaires assessing parental stress and parental self-efficacy. The findings revealed that the interaction between children’s intellectual giftedness and ADHD was associated with an increase in parental stress levels, whereas no such effect was observed for parental self-efficacy. Furthermore, parents of intellectually gifted/ADHD children reported higher levels of parental stress compared to parents of children without these conditions, which may be partly explained by lower levels of parental self-efficacy. Finally, the results suggested that the interaction between the child’s neurodevelopmental condition and the parent’s gender alleviated parental self-efficacy, particularly among mothers of intellectually gifted/ADHD children. This study highlights the clinical utility of considering parental self-efficacy as a key intervention point for supporting parents of intellectually gifted/ADHD children in managing their parental stress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".