↓ Skip to main content

How Do Children with ADHD (Mis)manage Their Real-Life Dyadic Friendships? A Multi-Method Investigation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
How Do Children with ADHD (Mis)manage Their Real-Life Dyadic Friendships? A Multi-Method Investigation
Published in
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10802-010-9450-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sébastien Normand, Barry H. Schneider, Matthew D. Lee, Marie-France Maisonneuve, Sally M. Kuehn, Philippe Robaey

Abstract

This multimethod study provides detailed information about the friendships of 87 children (76% boys) with ADHD and 46 comparison children aged 7-13 years. The methods included parent and teacher ratings, self-report measures and direct observation of friends' dyadic behaviors in three structured analogue tasks. Results indicated that, in contrast with comparison children, children with ADHD had friends with high levels of ADHD and oppositional symptoms; they perceived fewer positive features and more negative features, and were less satisfied in their friendships. Observational data indicated that children with ADHD performed both more legal and more illegal maneuvers than comparison children in a fast-paced competitive game. While negotiating with their friends, children with ADHD made more insensitive and self-centered proposals than comparison children. In dyads consisting of one child with ADHD and one typically developing child, children with ADHD were often more dominant than their friends.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 52%
Social Sciences 12 16%
Unspecified 8 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 7 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,112,972
of 8,276,988 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
#299
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,172
of 78,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
#13
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,276,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 78,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.