Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Just a short thing because I keep seeing this paper being cited around the place as evidence that the parents of CFS patients tend to have unusually high and distorted expectations of their children, without the limitations of the study being explained.
It seems so common in CFS for weak a study to be published, and the paper will include provisos, but then go on to be cited uncritically in other papers and presentations.
It's not very interesting, but I thought I might as well post my notes up:
It was not a prospective study, so the testing is only done once people already have CFS.
As it says: "Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterized by prolonged physical and mental fatigue of at least 6 months' duration that severely affects functioning[1]"
It is not surprising that children who are suffering from a condition characterized by mental fatigue tend to under perform their parent's expectations on IQ tests more than health controls.
The paper actually says:
Who knows what other confounding factors there may be - perhaps parents of ill children try to be 'supportive' by speaking more highly of them? Who knows. There's some reason to think that there's a problem with selection bias for patients who end up in tertiary care for CFS, and their results show that there is for for students/parents willing to volunteer for IQ tests at school. (edit: As Snow Leopard mentions beneath: "There is clearly heavy selection bias in the group. 21% of the CFS group and 52% of the control group tested in the top 10% (effectively 90th percentile IQ). You can't draw any conclusions when the groups are so heavily skewed like that.") This study doesn't really let us say much about anything.
Also:
Seperate minor point: This study reported higher (although really insignificant 7% vs 11%) levels of family history of fatigue in controls than patients. I've seen others talk about parental fatigue as a psychosocial risk factor (although that always seemed a bit risky considering our poor understanding of any genetic component).
Here's the Chalder slide which prompted this, but I've seen similar things around the place. (Compare and contrast with what's said in the paper: "However, the discrepancy between expectation and actual IQ did not differ significantly between groups")
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JmsJB03WQOEJ:www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Chalder%20T.pdf &hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgV7Vm8xtaG6kaKTp08HEMAT8eRJZJI-6iLy8COa97xRQQPEgP4OHUsIm6RpCzMuQSBRbVuXDtNV8yPVygHuVXSHe0Yl7rGiSbjuB6X2g_F1po4ni1LY9vUWlwg2atWknfNOcEk&sig=AHIEtbRJpimAIgsKIwxt22wbZOBniWkJzA
There's a clearer example of her exaggerating the value of her work here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...o-educational-intervention-to-aid-reco.13326/
It seems so common in CFS for weak a study to be published, and the paper will include provisos, but then go on to be cited uncritically in other papers and presentations.
It's not very interesting, but I thought I might as well post my notes up:
Chronic fatigue syndrome in adolescents: Do parental expectations of their
child's intellectual ability match the child's ability?
Emma Godfrey a, Anthony Cleare b, Alice Coddington b, Amanda Roberts a, John Weinman a, Trudie Chalder b,
⁎
a
Department of Psychology, Kings College London, London, UK
b
Department of Psychological Medicine, Kings College London, London, UK
Received 28 March 2008; received in revised form 16 February 2009; accepted 17 February 2009
Abstract
Objective:
This cross-sectional study aimed to measure the
discrepancy between actual and perceived IQ in a sample of
adolescents with CFS compared to healthy controls. We hypothe-
sized that adolescents with CFS and their parent would have higher
expectations of the adolescent's intellectual ability than healthy
adolescents and their parent.
Methods:
The sample was 28 CFS patients and 29 healthy controls aged 11–
19 years and the parent of each participant. IQ was assessed using the AH4 group test of
general intelligence and a self-rating scale which measured perceived IQ.
Results:
Parents' perceptions of their children's IQ were significantly higher for individuals with CFS than healthy controls.
Conclusions:
High expectations may need to be addressed
within the context of treatment.
It was not a prospective study, so the testing is only done once people already have CFS.
As it says: "Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterized by prolonged physical and mental fatigue of at least 6 months' duration that severely affects functioning[1]"
It is not surprising that children who are suffering from a condition characterized by mental fatigue tend to under perform their parent's expectations on IQ tests more than health controls.
The paper actually says:
Ideally, CFS adolescents should be reassessed on recovery as it is possible that their IQ was affected by the illness and that parents' expectations are accurate.
Who knows what other confounding factors there may be - perhaps parents of ill children try to be 'supportive' by speaking more highly of them? Who knows. There's some reason to think that there's a problem with selection bias for patients who end up in tertiary care for CFS, and their results show that there is for for students/parents willing to volunteer for IQ tests at school. (edit: As Snow Leopard mentions beneath: "There is clearly heavy selection bias in the group. 21% of the CFS group and 52% of the control group tested in the top 10% (effectively 90th percentile IQ). You can't draw any conclusions when the groups are so heavily skewed like that.") This study doesn't really let us say much about anything.
Also:
Parental expectations of IQ were significantly higher for
patients with CFS than for healthy controls. However, the
discrepancy between expectation and actual IQ did not differ
significantly between groups (t=−1.7,P=.09).
Seperate minor point: This study reported higher (although really insignificant 7% vs 11%) levels of family history of fatigue in controls than patients. I've seen others talk about parental fatigue as a psychosocial risk factor (although that always seemed a bit risky considering our poor understanding of any genetic component).
Here's the Chalder slide which prompted this, but I've seen similar things around the place. (Compare and contrast with what's said in the paper: "However, the discrepancy between expectation and actual IQ did not differ significantly between groups")
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JmsJB03WQOEJ:www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Chalder%20T.pdf &hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgV7Vm8xtaG6kaKTp08HEMAT8eRJZJI-6iLy8COa97xRQQPEgP4OHUsIm6RpCzMuQSBRbVuXDtNV8yPVygHuVXSHe0Yl7rGiSbjuB6X2g_F1po4ni1LY9vUWlwg2atWknfNOcEk&sig=AHIEtbRJpimAIgsKIwxt22wbZOBniWkJzA
There's a clearer example of her exaggerating the value of her work here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...o-educational-intervention-to-aid-reco.13326/