This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Cecelia M. McCarton, MD
Infant Health and Development Program Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University Bronx, NY

JAMA. 1997;277(16):1278-1279.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

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 . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?