Reply to Cicchetti, Kaufman, and Sparrow

Nynke Weisglas-Kuperus*, Hestien J.I. Vreugdenhil, Paul G.H. Mulder

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)665-668
Number of pages4
JournalPsychology in the Schools
Volume41
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2004

Cite this