Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Infant Health and Development Program: Results at 8 Years-Reply

The Infant Health and Development Program: Results at 8 Years-Reply In Reply. —The analyses of Drs Baumeister and Bacharach as reported in Intelligence1 are flawed by their use of correlational analyses to draw inferences regarding causality and by selectively analyzing smaller, post-hoc subgroups to support their conclusions. Their current criticism of the 3-year, 5-year, and 8-year data is based on a conclusion derived from a correlational analysis of a selected cohort of the combined intervention and follow-up groups drawn from data deposited with NAPS. This approach violates the design of the study as a multisite randomized trial, ignores the specific characteristics of each assessment point, and biases their sample by including only those children seen at all time points. At each age, we followed the intention-to-treat principle used in randomized controlled trials to minimize bias: every available randomized child was analyzed without any post-hoc exclusions. As seen in Table 2 in our article, the sample seen at 8 years was nearly http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

The Infant Health and Development Program: Results at 8 Years-Reply

JAMA , Volume 277 (16) – Apr 23, 1997

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/the-infant-health-and-development-program-results-at-8-years-reply-U6PifaFOT5
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.1997.03540400028021
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In Reply. —The analyses of Drs Baumeister and Bacharach as reported in Intelligence1 are flawed by their use of correlational analyses to draw inferences regarding causality and by selectively analyzing smaller, post-hoc subgroups to support their conclusions. Their current criticism of the 3-year, 5-year, and 8-year data is based on a conclusion derived from a correlational analysis of a selected cohort of the combined intervention and follow-up groups drawn from data deposited with NAPS. This approach violates the design of the study as a multisite randomized trial, ignores the specific characteristics of each assessment point, and biases their sample by including only those children seen at all time points. At each age, we followed the intention-to-treat principle used in randomized controlled trials to minimize bias: every available randomized child was analyzed without any post-hoc exclusions. As seen in Table 2 in our article, the sample seen at 8 years was nearly

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Apr 23, 1997

There are no references for this article.