An Evaluation of ADHD Symptoms and Behaviors within a Summer Camp Designed for Children with ADHD

In April 2026, Kelly Lojinger presented the results of an analysis of our first year Camp Boost data, examining the frequency of positive and negative behavior and the degree to which those behaviors were predictable from parent ratings of ADHD symptoms at intake. These results were presented at the Southeastern School Behavioral Health Conference in Greenville, SC.

Introduction

•Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a high-incidence condition leading to significant and costly functional impairments across home, school, and community settings (Fabiano et al., 2014).

•Intensive behavioral interventions, like the Summer Treatment Program (STP), effectively treat ADHD symptoms and impairments (Pelham & Hoza, 1996).

•But the STP requires significant time (8-9 weeks) and resources. Adapted STPs have emerged to improve feasibility and accessibility, and initial research suggests some promise (Wilson et al., 2025; Wymbs et al., 2021).

•Camp Boost is a weeklong adapted STP that “boosts” children’s readiness for school through participation in recreational, academic, and social activities, but research to date is limited.

Current Study

•We launched Camp Boost at one site in North Carolina and examined (1) change in participant behavior each day of the program; and (2) the degree to which parent ratings of ADHD severity predict behavioral performance during Camp Boost. The latter examination was intended to strengthen candidacy determinations in future iterations of the program.

Method

•Eleven rising third- to fifth-grade students were recruited to attend Camp Boost in the summer of 2025. At intake, parents completed the ADHD-5 Rating Scale (DuPaul et al., 2016).

•Trained graduate-level Camp Boost counselors tracked participant behaviors during every activity period throughout the camp day.

•Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used to evaluate student behavior change and the predictive value of the parent ratings on counts of positive and negative behavior calls during Camp Boost.

Results

•Parent ratings of ADHD symptoms for inattention (M = 16.4; SD = 7.2) and hyperactivity-impulsivity (M = 10.7; SD = 6.2) appeared elevated, with higher inattentive symptoms, t(10) = 4.65, p < .001, d = 1.41, and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, t(10) = 2.94, p = .015, d = 0.88, than the norm sample.

•Over the five-day program, the average number of negative behavior calls declined by 1.4 calls per day. The average number of positive behavior calls declined by roughly 0.3 calls per day (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Average Behavior Calls per Student per Day of Camp Boost

•We then regressed total negative and total positive behavior calls on ADHD symptoms, examining each outcome separately.

Table 1: Regression Model Predicting Total Negative Behavior Calls in Camp Boost

Table 2: Regression Model Predicting Total Positive Behavior Calls in Camp Boost

• Hyperactivity–impulsivity symptoms appeared positively associated with total positive behavior calls, but the overall model was not statistically significant, F(2, 8) = 2.97, p = .109, R² = .43, adj. R² = .28. This result may be due to influential cases (e.g., Cook’s D > 0.5) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Prediction of Positive Behavior Calls from Intake Levels of Hyperactivity-Impulsivity

Discussion

•Our initial evaluation of ADHD symptoms and behaviors during a one-week adapted STP (i.e., “Camp Boost”) suggests a consistent 3:1 ratio of positive to negative behavior calls during the program. This is roughly consistent with expectations in the STP of a 4:1 ratio.

•Both negative and positive behavior calls decreased after Day 2 for reasons that are unclear.

•Contrary to our expectations, parent ratings of ADHD did not reliably predict positive or negative behavior calls during the program. It appeared that student behavior in the program was decoupled from parent perceptions of the participants’ behavior elsewhere. It is possible that behavior in the treatment setting is driven more by the program context than by baseline symptom severity.

•One possible exception is hyperactivity-impulsivity severity predicting positive behavior calls—a counter-intuitive result that may be an artifact of influential cases.

•More research is needed to determine if (1) hyperactive-impulsive participants truly display the most positive behaviors in Camp Boost; (2) if counselors are overly generous with positive behavior calls for hyperactive-impulsive participants; or (3) this finding was unreliable and will change once additional data are collected.

References

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the parents and children who attended Camp Boost, as well as the graduate students and faculty who made the camp possible. In particular, we thank Dr. Christy Walcott, Dr. Debbie Thurneck, and Allison Dembowski for their support and leadership.