Abstract
The aim of the review of D.V. Cicchetti, A.S. Kaufman, and S.S. Sparrow (funded by the General Electric Company; this issue) is "to evaluate [the] literature relating the effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) upon neurobehavioral, health-related, and cognitive deficits in neonates, developing infants, children, and adults" (p. 589) on the basis of data derived from seven cohorts. One of these cohorts is the Dutch PCB/dioxin study. The paper of Cicchetti et al. presents a long, winding exercise in criticizing aspects of the design of the seven studies. Here we will give a comment on their review, as far as it concerns our own work. We applied the six fundamental sets of scientific criteria as proposed by Cichetti et al.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 665-668 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Psychology in the Schools |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2004 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to Cicchetti, Kaufman, and Sparrow'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver