Youth sport experiences of individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the potential benefits of sport participation for individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), they may face challenges that undermine their sport experiences. Yet there is little research that tries to understand the sport experiences of individuals with AD/HD. The purpose of this study was to explore the youth sport experiences of individuals with AD/HD. Six male young adults (age range = 17-26 years) diagnosed with AD/HD who had played three or more seasons of team sport(s) in their youth were purposefully sampled. Only males were chosen because more males are diagnosed with AD/HD than females at a ratio of approximately 3:1. Participants each completed two semi-structured interviews. Data analysis using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) revealed that participants shared common sport experiences. Overall, participants enjoyed playing sports and recalled that they benefited from participating in sport. However, they also recalled negative experiences pertaining to sport performances and interactions with coaches and teammates. Many perceived that their AD/HD symptoms manifested in sport, and that these symptoms and associated behaviours influenced their sport performance and relationship with others. How they and others in sport responded to the symptoms and associated behaviours shaped their sport experiences. Findings from this study revealed specific issues that mattered to participants' enjoyment of sport. This might inform coaches of athletes with AD/HD on ways to enhance their sport experiences, subsequently, promoting sport participation for this group of individuals.
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".