Going on the theory that any research along these lines is probably "WRONG", I opened the document to see if I could find pertainent Numberwatch information.
I could not find the Relative Risk, confidence interval, or Odds Ratio within the confines of the document. Maybe I am blind (I was scanning quickly). I figured that such numbers should appear in the Abstract, Results, Conclusion or Raw data. Perhaps I am just blind. The most I found was a reference to a 10% confidence interval. Correct me if I am wrong, but that would be p>10%, the same fraud that the EPA committed.
Anyone else have an opinion.
I am not the biggest fan of TV, but I hate the #@()@) fear monger.
I didn't see any of the things you searched for in the document, though I only scanned it quickly, my time is too important to waste on this sort of pap. I did hwoever find this footnote in the text.
The first of these findings is not statistically significant at standard confidence levels. But given that on average at six months of age the high-risk group took thirty percent longer to disengage than the low-risk group, the lack of statistical significance is more likely due to small sample sizes (sixty-five high-risk infants and twenty-three low-risk infants) than to the possibility that there is no statistically important relationship between disengagement and group type.
Any semblance of credibility that this study might have is blown out of the water by this paragraph. They've made up their mind, and the fact that the data doesn't support them is neither here nor there as far as they're concerned.