Performance Calibration in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) And A Community Sample of Typically Developing Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated performance calibration in 81 8-12 year-old children [M = 119.89 months (or 9 years, 11months), SD = 14.92 months, 26 females], 39 with and 42 without ADHD, from the Greater Toronto Area. Performance calibration was evaluated across the domains of general knowledge, emotion recognition, and recognition of the valence of social situations using several indices. Parents of children in the clinical ADHD group rated their childrens performance calibration skills significantly lower than parents in the typically developing (TD) group. While no group difference in performance calibration for general knowledge items were observed, the easy-hard effect was demonstrated, such that harder items elicited overconfidence and easier items elicited underconfidence across groups. The clinical ADHD group rated their effort expenditure significantly lower across most tasks although there were no differences in the perception of difficulty compared to the TD group. The clinical ADHD group was significantly overconfident on emotion recognition compared to the TD group, whereas the TD group was more accurate and underconfident across emotions. The clinical ADHD group was more confident overall when recognizing the valence of ambiguous social situations and more confident on the negative situations compared to the TD group. Thus, this study obtained performance calibration differences across facial emotion recognition and interpretation of social situations for children with ADHD compared to a TD group. The Bias Index, a measure of under/overconfidence, was recommended for future examinations of group differences in performance calibration. An investigation of the clinical utility of different performance calibration measures is presented and implications for interventions are discussed.
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".