View Story | 94 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
There was this unusual but intriguing study not too long ago that looked at autism rates in rural areas with little TV reception (and thus have little access to children's programming). The researcher showed a correlation between the arrival of cable service and autism rates - the longer it took for cable to reach an area, the later the autism rate began to climb. The idea was that children watched more TV as children's programming became available. There was plenty of criticism of this study but also agreement that he could be onto something - I don't know if anyone's done a followup yet.
by lyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:59:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I posted a quick diary on this when the study came out and several people thought it was a faulty study.
Miles and His Favorites: The World As Seen By an Eight Year Old
by Hillary on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM PDT
It's the interpretation that was a disaster. These guys came nowhere near showing that TV was a cause of autism. They're not medically trained, and not epidemiologists, so they had no idea how to interpret their findings or where the pitfalls were. They were so excited about the data they found that they jumped straight to overinterpretation. The journal editors should never have permitted that.
Statistically, though, I believe it was considered a pretty good study (though of a type that is inherently weak). And while it doesn't show causation, correlation is nothing to sneeze at. Nearly all causes start as correlations. So I certainly hope someone with a better understanding of the issue is following up on the observation.
by lyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:07:42 PM PDT
View Story | 94 comments