Suppr超能文献

志愿者登记中的双胞胎儿童:父母参与和报告中的偏差。

Twin children in volunteer registries: biases in parental participation and reporting.

作者信息

Hay D A, Clifford C, Derrick P, Hopper J, Renard B, Theobald T M

机构信息

Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1990;39(1):71-84. doi: 10.1017/s0001566000005584.

Abstract

The biases in voluntary participation by adult twins are well known but less attention has been paid to twin children where parents decide on participation and provide much of the information. Several aspects of reporting including the assessment of zygosity are compared in four large Australian data bases: 1) a nationwide compulsory (and hence representative) survey of literacy and numeracy; 2) a nationwide "Twins in School" survey of parents and teachers of twins run through Education Departments and AMBA, the parents organisation in conjunction with LaTrobe; 3) the LaTrobe Twin Study which is a longitudinal program involving frequent interactions between families and researchers, and 4) the Australian NHMRC Twin Registry which has surveyed a large sample of their families with twin children by mail. One potential bias comes when recruitment is on a continuing basis as in the LaTrobe Twin Study and the Australian Twin Registry when differences between "early" and "late" enrolling families arise. One difference between the four samples arose from parents being much more likely to contrast their twins and to report problems in one but not the other, whereas teachers' and psychologists' assessments of these same children generally reported much smaller intrapair differences. Future studies should have some common questions to provide comparative data on such biases. Key questions are proposed for this area, mainly on the perceived need for different forms of remediation, together with other recommendations about the minimal essential baseline data set for a registry.

摘要

成年双胞胎自愿参与研究时存在的偏差众所周知,但对于由父母决定参与并提供大部分信息的双胞胎儿童,关注较少。在澳大利亚的四个大型数据库中,对报告的几个方面(包括合子性评估)进行了比较:1)全国性的识字和算术能力强制性(因此具有代表性)调查;2)通过教育部和AMBA(与拉筹伯大学合作的家长组织)开展的全国性“学校中的双胞胎”家长和教师调查;3)拉筹伯双胞胎研究,这是一个纵向项目,涉及家庭与研究人员之间的频繁互动;4)澳大利亚国家卫生与医学研究委员会双胞胎登记处,该登记处通过邮件对有双胞胎子女的大量家庭样本进行了调查。当像拉筹伯双胞胎研究和澳大利亚双胞胎登记处那样持续进行招募时,“早期”和“晚期”登记家庭之间出现差异,就会产生一种潜在偏差。这四个样本之间的一个差异源于父母更有可能对比他们的双胞胎,并报告其中一个有问题而另一个没有问题,而教师和心理学家对这些相同儿童的评估通常报告的双胞胎内差异要小得多。未来的研究应该有一些共同的问题,以便提供关于此类偏差的比较数据。针对这一领域提出了关键问题,主要是关于对不同形式补救措施的感知需求,以及关于登记处最小基本基线数据集的其他建议。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验