Cognitive Profiles of Children with Reading Disabilities and/or ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on prior work, this study examined cognitive profiles of children with reading disabilities (RD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and their comorbidity (ADHD + RD) compared to typically developing (TD) peers. Participants included 151 Grade 1-3 students, where there were 31 students with RD, 43 with ADHD, 27 with ADHD + RD, and 50 TD in China. Children were assessed in four cognitive domains: attention, inhibition, working memory, and rapid automatized naming (RAN), with age statistically controlled. Significant group differences emerged in each domain. The TD group consistently outperformed all groups. The comorbid ADHD + RD group showed pronounced deficits in attention, inhibition, and RAN. One-way ANCOVAs and multivariate analyses indicated that both RD and ADHD groups showed weaknesses in attention and RAN, with RD group weaker in working memory and ADHD group in inhibition. A 2 × 2 factorial ANCOVA confirmed significant main effects of RD and/or ADHD across domains, with no significant interaction effects, supporting an additive model. Findings highlight distinct and overlapping cognitive challenges associated with RD and ADHD and underscore the need for domain-specific intervention planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".