The personality constructs of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder as measured by the Temperament and Character Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), as defined by the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-4th Edition (DSM-IV) is associated with many co-morbid disorders However, there is a paucity of literature addressing the co-morbidity of PD and ADHD which was reviewed from the perspective of two models defining PD: categorical versus dimensional. The present study examines the relationship of personality constructs to ADHD. In this study, the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Part II (SCID II) were given to adults with ADHD (n = 154) who were compared to Normal Controls (NC); n = 100). The ADHD sample was further divided into ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Subtype (ADHD-I; n = 83) and ADHD, Predominantly Combined Subtype (ADHD-C; n = 71). The key results showed: (1) ADHD adults were found to be significantly different from NC on 5/7 TCI dimensions: Novelty Seeking [NS], Harm Avoidance [HA], Self-Directedness [SD], Cooperativeness [C] and Self-Transcendence [ST] but not on Reward Dependence [RD] or Persistence [P]. (2) The ADHD Subtypes were discriminated on [NS] and [HA]. (3) Personality Cluster comparisons using the TCI and SCID II were related. (4) ADHD-C subjects had externalizing Cluster B PD and ADHD-I had internalizing Cluster C PD. (5) One third of ADHD Subtypes had Passive-Aggressive PD. (6) ADHD patients were likely to have a PD compared to NC. The potential relationship between PD and ADHD is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".