Pediatrics has a new longitudinal study examining predictors of hyperactivity in young children. Using a strong method for identifying participating children, E. Romano and colleagues followed 100 children for about 5 years and found that those with more persistent and higher degrees of hyperactivity were (a) boys of mothers who (b) smoked during pregnanacy, (c) were depressed, and were said to (d) use “hostile parenting.” Here’s a link to the abstract.
Development and Prediction of Hyperactive Symptoms From 2 to 7 Years in a Population-Based Sample
Elisa Romano, PhD, Richard E. Tremblay, PhD, Abdeljelil Farhat, PhD, and Sylvana Côté, PhD
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 6 June 2006, pp. 2101-2110 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0651)
Over on I Speak of Dreams, Liz has a nice post about reading instruction. In “Causes of Reading Failure #2,305” she quotes from and points at some resources regarding the unbalanced views of reading instruction.
The Rochester (NY, US) Democrat & Chronicle is carrying a three-part series on the effects of lead on children. In part one, Michael Zeigler provides a case study of a boy with Learning Disabilities, Freddie Lewis who was shot dead at age 12. Mr. Zeigler’s case study of Freddie doesn’t focus on the lead bullet that killed him, however.
But the untold story of Freddie is that he was one of at least 24,000 Rochester children victimized over the past 12 years by lead poisoning — a pernicious malady that research suggests can lead to irreversible neurological disorders, multiple learning disabilities impulsiveness, and, some say, contributes to violence and high homicide rates.
In the second installment, Misty Edgecomb reports about the research on the effects of lead poisoning.
These are well-written and informative articles.
Links to Mr. Zeigler’s story (about Freddie) and Ms. Edgecomb’s story. Link to a page that provides links to all three stories. There is an earlier entry in LD Blog about the lead issue.
Do parents and children see things in similar ways? As with most matters of this sort, there are at least two factors: the objective things and the interpretations people—children and their parents, in this case—have of those things. Here’s a reference and abstract for a new study by Klassen, Miller, and Fine that is about to appear in Child: Care, Health and Development. At least on this matter (quality of life), parents and children do not see things the same. To the extent that this is more generally true, it makes me even more certain that we professionals should not depend only on the perceptions of one party. Even if one party’s account is closer to the objective facts, we have to enquire calmly and honestly about the perceptions of both.
Child Care Health Dev. 2006 Jul;32(4):397-406.
Agreement between parent and child report of quality of life in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Klassen AF, Miller A, Fine S.
Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Background There is little information in the research literature of agreement between parent and child in reports of child quality of life (QOL) for a sample of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim of our study was to determine whether parent and child concordance is greater for physical domains of QOL than for psychosocial domains; whether parents rate their child’s QOL better or poorer than their child’s ratings; and whether concordance is related to demographic, socioeconomic or clinical factors. Methods The study was a questionnaire survey of children aged 10-17 referred to the ADHD clinic and diagnosed with ADHD in the province of British Columbia (Canada) between November 2001 and October 2002 and their parent. Results Fifty-eight children diagnosed with ADHD and their parents completed our study questionnaire. The main outcome measure was the Child Health Questionnaire, which permitted comparisons on eight QOL domains and one single item. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for five domains (range from 0.40 to 0.51), and good for three domains (range from 0.60 to 0.75). Children rated their QOL significantly better than their parents in four areas and poorer in one. Standardized Response Means indicated clinically important differences in mean scores for Behaviour and Self-esteem. Compared with population norms, across most domains, children with ADHD reported comparable health. Discrepancies between parent-child ratings were related to the presence of a comorbid oppositional/defiant disorder, a psychosocial stressor and increased ADHD symptoms. Conclusions Although self-report is an important means of eliciting QOL data, in children with ADHD, given the discrepancies in this study between parent and child report, measuring both perspectives seems appropriate.
Link to the PUBMED entry.
In an article entitled “German Scientists Uncover Dyslexia Gene,” DW-Worldwide reports that a term of German scientists has further evidence about DCDC2 as the genetic basis for dyslexia. It’s not quite as much of a new discovery as DW-Worldwide makes it out to be, but it is corroborating evidence.
Dyslexia tends to affect family groups, a fact German geneticists were well aware of when they began their search for a gene responsible for the disease. Now, researchers at the National Genome Research Network say they have located the dyslexia gene, known as DCDC2.
Link to the DW Worldwide article. (Note the very cute picture of the dog and the clever caption that perptuate the reversals myth.) Links to previous coverage of DCDC2 in LD Blog here and here (the latter includes links to several sources for further information).
The American Academy of Pediatrics has several very good pages about Learning Disabilities, but they have one curious flaw. In two of the pages, the authors make clear that visual problems do not cause Learning Disabilities, but on one about dyslexia the author perpetuates the reversals myth.
However, a young student with dyslexia (reading disabilities) may not overcome these problems. The difficulty can continue as the student gets older. To him, a “b” may look like a “d.” He may write “on” when he really means “no.” Your child may reverse a “6″ to make “9.” This is not a vision problem. The problem involves how the brain interprets the information it “sees.”
Sure, this is not a huge point about Learning Disabilities, but it still concerns me that the misinformation is so common. How can we combat this? Links to the AAP pages follow.
Latest Comments