Daring-Impulsive (DI) Traits Versus ADHD Features in Adolescent Boys with Conduct Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While daring-impulsive (DI) traits have been deemed an important concept in subtyping youth with conduct disorder (CD) as part of a multispecifier model, no work has examined whether DI traits add to the existing practice of designating youth with CD beyond co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: This study examined the utility of DI traits (versus ADHD features) in a sample of 322 justice-involved adolescent boys (ages 16-17 years). In addition to a diagnostic interview to determine severity of CD, adolescents completed measures of DI, ADHD, as well as other relevant characteristics. RESULTS: Findings revealed differential associations between DI and ADHD in relation to indices of CD, externalizing psychopathology (i.e. reactive aggression, proactive aggression, substance use), internalizing psychopathology (i.e. anxiety, depression), and domains of impulsivity (i.e. positive urgency, negative urgency, sensation seeking, premeditation, perseverance). Additionally, over and above ADHD, DI contributed incremental information in explaining CD, externalizing psychopathology, positive urgency, sensation seeking, and lack of premeditation, but not internalizing psychopathology nor negative urgency and lack of perseverance. Of the 286 adolescents with CD, 114 (39.9%) were in the DI group and only 81 (28.3%) were in the ADHD group. Finally, differential correlates emerged between adolescents exhibiting CD alone, high CD and high DI traits, and high CD and high ADHD features. CONCLUSIONS: Findings tentatively suggest DI traits and ADHD features are empirically distinct from each other in relation to CD and relevant characteristics and, therefore, improved clinical care for adolescents with CD will likely require differential consideration of DI and ADHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".