## 5 Discussion and Conclusions
However, because the other groups randomly recruited participants from an elementary school and had their parents use an existing screening diagnostic tool, the reliability of the results was very low. In other words, the existing screening tools produce significantly varying results depending on how actively parents participate in the test, which means that the existing tools have no choice but to rely on the voluntary participation of parents. Finally, we analyzed the meaning of the results shown in each of the extracted indicators. Using Equation (1), we analyzed the BD between the ADHD, ADHD risk, and normal groups for each indicator. The results are shown in Table 13. As mentioned before, indicator A1 indicates the extent of the child's movement while the robot was explaining and demonstrating. As shown in Table 13, the BD of indicator A1 between the groups is 0.6325, 0.8134, and 0.813, respectively. This is large compared with the other indicators. Therefore, this result means that the similarity of indicator A1 appearing in each class is low. Furthermore, the BD between the normal and ADHD risk groups was 0.6325, and that between the other groups was 0.81 or more. This suggests that the data distribution of the ADHD group is far from that of the other data groups, so it can be more properly classified. Indicators A2 and A3 mean \"sitting down during wait\" and \"leaving the waiting area during wait\", respectively. In addition, indicators B1 and B2 mean \"entering the game \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Groups**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Normal and ADHD at Risk** & **ADHD at Risk and ADHD** & **Normal and ADHD** \\ \hline A1 & 0.6325 & 0.8134 & 0.8130 \\ A2 & 0.1783 & 0.3813 & 0.4157 \\ A3 & 0.3627 & 0.6184 & 0.6240 \\ B1 & 0.1273 & 0.2135 & 0.2823 \\ B2 & 0.0369 & 0.0752 & 0.0698 \\ B3 & 0.2217 & 0.2200 & 0.1637 \\ B5 & 0.1015 & 0.1417 & 0.1504 \\ C1 & 0.1283 & 0.1588 & 0.1957 \\ C2 & 0.1149 & 0.1661 & 0.1230 \\ C3 & 0.0674 & 0.2646 & 0.2787 \\ C4 & 0.1206 & 0.0900 & 0.1846 \\ C5 & 0.6173 & 0.6910 & 0.6612 \\ D1 & 0.4546 & 0.6658 & 0.6164 \\ D2 & 0.3470 & 0.5838 & 0.5426 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: BD for each indicator for each group. board before the start instruction\" and \"not playing the game after the start instruction\", respectively. Consequently, indicators A2, A3, B1, and B2 are expressed in terms of the number of times. The BD of A2 and A3 was 0.1783, 0.3813, and 0.4157 and 0.3627, 0.6184, and 0.6240, for each group, respectively. In addition, The BD of indicators B1 and B2 was 0.1273, 0.2135, and 0.2823 and 0.0369, 0.0752, and 0.0698, for each group, respectively. This means that the similarity between the groups is higher than the preceding indicator A1. In the case of B3, the BD were 0.2217, 0.22, and 0.1637 for each group, respectively. Therefore, the B3 index suggests that each data group cannot be classified better by B3 than by indicator A1. In addition, the BD of indicator B5 is 0.1015, 0.1417, and 0.1504. This result also means that the distribution of indicator B5 for each group is very similar, suggesting that there is no significant difference between the data groups compared with A1. C1-C4 are indicators indicating the child's correct/incorrect response to stimuli. The BD of these indicators ranges from 0.0674 to 0.2787, which shows a high degree of similarity in data distribution compared with other indicators. In addition, indicator C5 is the time it takes for the child to respond to the stimulus, and the BD between the groups is 0.6173, 0.6612, and 0.6910, respectively. Lastly, D1 and D2 are the total time and distance traveled by the child playing the game, respectively. The BD of indicators D1 and D2 ranged from 0.4546 to 0.6658 and 0.3470 to 0.5838, respectively.