|
Parental Intelligence - Issue 62
|
Bob Collier
|
Oct 06, 2003 07:58 PDT
|
-------------------PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE------------------
6 October 2003
Issue 62
Bob Collier, Editor mailto:quauss-@hotmail.com
This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. You are
receiving it because you requested a subscription, or it
has been forwarded to you by a friend.
If you're not a subscriber and you'd like to subscribe,
please either visit
http://www.topica.com/lists/pintel
or send a blank email to:
pintel-s-@topica.com
If you want to unsubscribe for any reason, please see the
unsubscribe instructions at the end of this newsletter.
Welcome to Parental Intelligence!
"The world's No.1 email newsletter for thinking parents"
In our role as parents, a major focus of our efforts is
working with our children towards their success as adults -
even while we’re (hopefully!) enjoying each moment we spend
with them as an end in itself.
What kind of people do we want our children to become as
they grow up?
This week’s parenting article from Tammy Cox, owner and
director of The Redirection Connection, offers advice with
that question in mind in “Important Lessons for a Child to
Learn And Tips For Teaching Them”.
Most of this week’s issue of Parental Intelligence is taken
up by The Candlelight Project. To be honest, my research
into the “dubious diagnosis” of ‘ADHD’ and the cult of
biopsychiatry is now turning into a dominant feature of my
daily life (more news about that next week!), which is
probably why my efforts in that direction have dominated
this week’s newsletter. There will be more variety in the
next issue of Parental Intelligence – I promise! But, in the
meantime, make sure you take on board the enlightening
information presented for your increased awareness in this
week’s episode of The Candlelight Project!
Thanks for reading. Have a great week until next time!
Bob
============================================================
Would you like to help my newsletter grow? Simply recommend
Parental Intelligence to all your friends who have children.
They'll thank you for it!
Why not hit that 'forward' button and recommend it to a
friend right now? If what they read is useful to them and
they want THEIR VERY OWN PERSONAL COPY of each and every
motivational, inspirational, lip smackin', thirst quenchin',
info-packed issue of the world's No.1 email newsletter for
thinking parents - all they have to do is send a blank email
to: pintel-s-@topica.com
It's as easy as that, and I'd be delighted to have them on
board! J
My goal is 2,000 subscribers by 31st December 2003. This
week's Parental Intelligence is going out to 161 smart
people.
Thank you everyone!
============================================================
************************************************************
A FREE GIFT FOR PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE READERS
For a limited time Parental Intelligence would like to give
you a free introductory copy of byronchild, a new Australian
magazine created especially for progressive families which,
like Parental Intelligence, supports the propagation of
intelligent information for parents. Simply email
ka-@byronpublications.com with your name and address and a
free magazine will be sent to you. See more about byronchild
at http://byronchild.com
************************************************************
Important Lessons for a Child to Learn
And Tips For Teaching Them
by Tammy Cox, LMSW
LESSON #1. Repair their mistakes instead of making excuses,
blaming someone else, covering up or lying; take
responsibility for their own actions.
The major reason why children don't learn to repair their
mistakes is punishment or fear of punishment. If a child
expects to be punished when they make a mistake, they will
try to do anything they can to avoid taking responsibility.
As adults we still sometimes do the same things. What
usually happens when an adult is caught speeding?
Instead of punishing children for making mistakes, we
suggest parents take this approach: "I see you made a
mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. How will you handle it?"
If this is done in a nonthreatening and loving manner the
child will be far more likely to start thinking in terms of
repairing mistakes and taking responsibility for his own
actions.
LESSON #2. Make and keep commitments so people can count on
them.
The best way to teach children to make and keep commitments
is to model it for them. If you always handle your
commitments to them with integrity, they will learn to do
likewise. When we break our commitments to our children we
are really teaching them that our word doesn't mean much so
theirs needn't either.
We suggest the following: writing dates you make with them
down on your appointment calendar and handling them just as
you would any other important meeting, offering a makeup
when you fail to keep a commitment and holding them
accountable when they break a commitment in a loving,
nonpunitive way.
LESSON #3. Communicate their feelings effectively.
What we resist, persists. All too often children are told
they shouldn't be feeling what they are feeling: "Oh you
don't really hate your brother", "Don't be sad", "You have
nothing to be angry about", "Stop crying!", etc. We start
this when they are tiny infants when we jiggle them, pat
them on the back, bounce them or shove a pacifier in their
mouths every time they start to cry, etc. All these
"feeling stoppers" are subtle ways of teaching children that
it is not OK to feel. Either the child becomes more
persistent and expresses the feelings for a longer period
of time or stuffs them. Carried into adulthood, this
inability to appropriately communicate feelings can create
real distance and other problems in relationships and there
is always a risk of exploding at some point when the
feelings can no longer be stuffed.
Recognizing and acknowledging a child's feelings, lets him
know that all feelings are OK. When all feelings are
accepted it is much easier to teach appropriate ways of
handling the negative ones. Once again, modeling is very
important.
LESSON #4. Ask for what they want instead of whining,
manipulating, threatening or having temper tantrums.
Children continue to do what works for them. If they have
learned that they can get what they want by whining,
manipulating, etc. they will continue to use those methods.
The one thing that sets this up more than anything else is
the way we tell them "no." All too often we tell them "no"
in a way that says it is not OK to ask for what they want.
The underlying messages are that they should know better and
that they are not important enough to have what they want.
And, many times we tell them "no" just for the purpose of
making sure they know we can control them.
We suggest teaching children more appropriate ways of asking
for what they want ("Please use a different voice."), saying
"no" in a fun, loving way and saying "yes" as often as
possible. Children are far less demanding when they know
that you really want them to have most of the things they
want. Avoid telling children that you can't afford too
often, which instills in them a sense of scarcity and
limited possibilities. Instead encourage them to create the
money to get it for themselves. Also avoid using the "maybe,
later" excuse, which to a child, usually means never.
LESSON #5. Be internally motivated to succeed and learn the
value of giving 100%.
Children are never motivated to be the best they can be by
fear, intimidation and humiliation, nor by inappropriate
praise. Encouragement, which builds internal motivation, is
always far more effective. To distinguish between
encouragement and inappropriate praise, check your
intention. If your intention is to get the child to keep
pleasing you it is an external motivation. Instead look for
ways to acknowledge the child so that he feels good about
himself. This can be done by saying things like, "You must
really feel good about that", etc. Avoid comparisons, which
set up competition, and teach children to enjoy the process;
doing instead of out-doing someone else, etc.
LESSON #6. Be able to handle failure, learn from it and
continue to take risks.
If children are punished or made to feel bad when they have
a failure they will focus on those negative feelings rather
than on the lessons to be learned from the failure. We
suggest viewing, even celebrating, failures as valuable
learning experiences. With this approach it is much easier
to continue to take risks and look at ways to do things
differently in the future.
LESSON #7. Manage conflict without hurting others and create
win-win solutions.
The ability to negotiate win-win solutions is one of the
most valuable tools a person can have. We can best teach it
to our children by being willing to negotiate win-win
solutions with them. If we were raised with an autocratic
style of parenting (and most of us were -- to some degree,
at least) we did not learn good negotiating skills. It is
important for children to know that we want them to win –
and that we want to win too. With this approach we can
negotiate until we all feel like winners. At first this may
take a little time, but eventually it will become so natural
that it will happen almost automatically and there will be
fewer power struggles.
LESSON #8. Handle problems as they occur so relationships
are fun and loving.
Many times children will not say what's bothering them for
fear of hurting us, being punished or losing our love.
Instead they swallow their resentment, letting it build and
fester which makes it impossible to have a fun and loving
relationship.
If we teach our children that our love is unconditional –
that there is nothing they could say, think, feel or do that
would make us not love them anymore, they will feel safer in
handling problems as they occur.
It is evident that in order to teach these lessons to our
children we need to use different tools than those handed
down to us by our parents. It is also important to remember
that the role model you provide is the strongest and most
valuable lesson of all. Actions really do speak louder than
words and children follow our examples much better than our
orders.
Copyright © Tammy Cox, 2002
Tammy Cox, LMSW, CPE is the owner and director of The
Redirection Connection an educational and personal growth
company based in Austin, Texas. She is a certified
instructor and trainer for the International Network for
Children and Families, and Global Relationship Centers, Inc.
For more information on parenting or relationship issues, or
to receive the free Redirection Connection e-newsletter,
Tammy can be reached at
phone:512/329-8806,
e-mail: redirec-@aol.com
http://www.redirectionconnection.com
------------------------------------------------------------
THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
This week, I want to take a closer look at an aspect of so-
called ‘ADHD’ that’s seemed to me from quite early on to be
something of an anomaly.
‘ADHD’, as we know, is generally presented to the public as
some kind of ‘malfunction’ of the brain. A ‘neurobiological
disorder’ or ‘brain disease’.
What, then, usually happens next if someone should suspect
that a child has a neurobiological disorder - a brain
disease?
Well, let’s take a look at an example of something that,
as far as I’m aware, nobody disputes is a GENUINE
neurobiological disorder or brain disease. Enchephalitis.
According to information obtained at the ‘Neurology Channel’
website:
“Encephalitis is inflammation (irritation and swelling) of
the brain. It often coexists with meningitis (inflammation
of the covering of the brain and spinal cord) and most cases
are caused by viral infection. Encephalitis ranges from mild
to severe and may result in permanent neurological damage
and death.”
This is typically how encephalitis is diagnosed:
“Diagnosis of encephalitis is based on the following:
· Medical history (including recent exposure to insects,
travel, personality changes, and contact with unusual
animals or illnesses)
· Neurological examination
· Blood and urine tests
· Imaging tests (e.g., CT scan, MRI scan, EEG)
· Spinal tap
A neurological exam is performed to evaluate mental status,
detect neurological problems such as motor dysfunction and
seizures, and help determine which area of the brain is
affected.
Blood and urine tests are used to isolate and identify
viruses. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA),
including IgM-capture ELISA (MAC-ELISA) and IgG ELISA, can
identify viruses that cause encephalitis soon after
infection. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can identify
small amounts of viral DNA.
CT scan (computer tomography) and MRI scan (magnetic
resonance imaging) produce computer images of the brain and
are used to detect abnormalities such as swelling (edema)
and bleeding (hemorrhage). MRI is able to detect
abnormalities earlier in the course of the infection. EEG
(electroencephalogram) involves placing electrodes on the
scalp to record and analyze electrical activity in the
brain. Wave patterns can suggest seizure disorder or a
specific viral infection, such as herpesvirus.
Spinal tap, or lumbar puncture, is performed to detect signs
of infection in cerebrospinal fluid and help make a
diagnosis. In this procedure, a needle is inserted between
two lumbar (lower spine) vertebrae, cerebrospinal fluid is
collected, and the fluid is analyzed for elevated white
blood cell counts, blood, and the presence of virus.
http://www.neurologychannel.com/encephalitis/index.shtml
That’s pretty impressive – note how much effort is put into
establishing a correct diagnosis.
‘ADHD’, the public is being told, is also a ‘brain disease’.
So, you’d expect it to be diagnosed using similar methods
and with similar effort and care, wouldn’t you?
In fact, it transpires that ‘ADHD’ is typically diagnosed
using something called the ‘Conners’ Rating Scales’.
They’re essentially questionnaires.
The Conners Rating Scales were devised by C. Keith Conners,
Ph.D., in 1970.
Here’s something about them from the sales page of a company
called Wide Range:
“The new Conners' Rating Scales Revised (1997) incorporate
many new enhancements to a set of measures that have long
been the standard for assessing attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents.
Normative data for the revised forms comes from a large
community based sample of children and adolescents collected
throughout the United States and Canada. Norms are available
for children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 on the parent and
teacher rating forms.
The scales correspond with symptoms used in the DSM-IV™ as
criteria for ADHD. They also contain a new empirically
created index for assessing children and adolescents at risk
for a diagnosis of ADHD.
Conners' Parent and Teacher Rating Scales are available in
short and long versions and offer alternate measures with
varying content and psychometric properties. The CTRS-R: L
and the CPRS-R: L include a ColorPlot™ Profile Form to
profile scale scores. The ColorPlot™ Forms are ideal for
presenting assessment results to parents.”
The ‘Complete Parent/Teacher Kit’ costs $168.00 (that’s
about $250 Australian).
Here’s an article about the Conners’ Rating Scales that’s
probably a little more neutral. It’s from the ‘Clinical
Psychology Review’, Volume 21, Issue 7, October 2001 (Pages
1061-1093)
THE CONNERS' PARENT RATING SCALES: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE
William J. Gianarris, Charles J. Golden and Lorie Greene
Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern
University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314,
USA
Abstract
The Conners' Parent Rating Scales (CPRS) have undergone a
considerable amount of scrutiny-and subsequent refining,
reshaping, and revising-since their development in 1970.
While such longitudinal scrutiny has ultimately led to a
more reliable, valid assessment tool, it has left behind a
wake of literature filled with misinformation and ambiguity.
Multiple versions of the Conners' Rating Scales (CRS), their
misuse, and inaccurate reporting by researchers have created
a body of literature that is difficult to interpret and
misleading to both researchers and clinicians. This review
is aimed at clarifying issues regarding the proper use of
the CPRS as both a diagnostic instrument and a research
tool.
DISCUSSION
Before the specific properties of the CPRS can be discussed,
it is important to understand the body of literature from
which the data were drawn. A total of 108 studies spanning
nearly three decades were reviewed, with 51 of these being
rejected for a variety of reasons (e.g., statistical
inadequacy, inaccurate reporting, etc.). Of the remaining
57 studies, few specifically targeted the CPRS. Instead,
the diagnostic and psychometric properties were taken as a
given, and the scales were used to diagnose, track
therapeutic progress, validate new measures, and so on.
The general willingness to use the CPRS at face value has
created 30 years worth of research with little specific
exploration into the validity and reliability of a now
widely used assessment tool. This paucity of targeted
research has made a retrospective analysis of the CPRS
difficult at best. Much of the data presented in this
review have been extracted from studies in which the CPRS
were used in an ancillary or supportive role--leaving
conclusions about the scales themselves to be pieced
together from an assortment of disconnected investigations.
In addition, many researchers failed to accurately report
which of the CRS were used, how the test was scored, or
which factors were included or omitted in the analyses.
Although these omissions were likely due to the fact that
the research was not focused specifically on the CPRS, often
times the data were rendered useless in furthering the
understanding of the CPRS. Despite this lack of cohesion and
focus, some relatively well-supported conclusions regarding
the use of the CPRS have been extracted from this disjointed
body of literature.
As the CPRS were originally introduced as instruments to
assess hyperactivity in children, it seems logical to first
discuss how well the literature supports this claim. In the
nearly 30 years since its development, research has shown
the CPRS to be not only sensitive to hyperactivity, but to a
wide variety of external (e.g., natural disasters, parental
involvement) and internal (e.g., Fragile X syndrome, brain
development) influences. The CPRS appear to be a reliable
and valid tool in assessing general psychopathology, but
seems to fall short in its ability to discriminate along
diagnostic lines.
Studies showed that the CPRS consistently distinguishes
ADHDs from normals (e.g., Ackerman and Plomin). However,
numerous studies also show that the CPRS is equally
effective at distinguishing normals from many other
psychiatric controls such as conduct disorder (Barkley,
1984), learning-disabled (Kuehne et al., 1987), and children
who had hydrocephalus as infants (Fernell et al., 1991).
Only a single, unreplicated study reported that the CPRS is
able to separate subjects within a group of mixed
psychiatric diagnoses (Kuehne et al., 1987). Zelko (1991)
found that the ASQ-P/T was able to distinguish between ADHD,
mixed psychiatric controls, and normals, but was unable to
effectively separate the psychiatric controls by diagnostic
grouping. Many studies revealed that the CPRS is unable to
differentiate ADHD from other disorders (e.g., Stein and
Zelko) and no support was found that any specific scale was
effective at identifying its corresponding disorder (i.e.,
Learning Problems Scale effectively discriminating Learning-
Disabled subjects).
It is important to realize that the CPRS is not a direct
measure of the child's behavior, but a reflection of
parental perception. In fact, research shows that the CPRS
correlates poorly with laboratory testing (e.g., Plomin &
Foch, 1981) with only a few exceptions, such as selected
scores on CPTs (Seidel & Joschko, 1991), and activity level
(Reichenbach et al., 1992). As a measure of perception, the
CPRS is subject to influence by any number of external
variables such as parental mood and ability, time spent with
the child, motivation for seeking treatment, and the locus
of behavior of most concern to the rater.
Rapoport and Benoit (1975) found that while mothers' diaries
of their children's behaviors correlated well with direct
observation, CPRS scores did not. This may indicate that
parents have a difficult time translating behavior into
clinically differential classifications such as "Pretty
much" and "Very much." Numerous studies showed that factors
such as parents' mental health (Frick and Schaughency),
number of children in the household (Conger et al., 1984),
marital discord (Smith & Jenkins, 1992), and time spent with
the child (Fitzgerald et al., 1994) all have a significant
effect on CPRS scores.
CPRS scores can also vary according to which area of
behavior the rater judges to be most important. Chelune et
al. (1986) found that parent ratings of hyperactivity
correlated well with physician ratings of medication
response, while teacher ratings were inversely related,
suggesting that perhaps the parents and teachers were using
entirely separate criteria in evaluating behavior, or
perhaps viewed similar behavior in opposing ways. Lastly, a
parent's ratings may be elevated due to some need for the
child to be sick (e.g., litigation) or ratings may be
deflated secondary to denial or a desire for the child to be
well. It is of utmost importance when using the CPRS to keep
in mind the myriad of potential influences that may
significantly alter scores.
While the CPRS has a number of empirically and conceptually
sound qualities, it is also limited by its scope and
indirect nature. The CPRS was designed as a global measure
intended to provide an overall picture of a child's pattern
of behavior. It is not a situation-specific measure that
narrowly focuses clinical attention on any one particular
facet of a child's life. When considering the CPRS as a
diagnostic tool, it is crucial to remember that its
usefulness is limited by the manner in which it assesses
behavior. Its questions tap into a broad range of behaviors,
with no focused attention given to any particular area.
While the CPRS's lack of situation specificity may rule it
out as the test-of-choice when the goal is a detailed
assessment of a specific problem area (e.g., peer relations,
anger management), its broad scope is more likely to
identify the existence of a wide range of problematic areas.
These problem areas can then be targeted for further
scrutiny and/or therapeutic attention. Therefore, the CPRS
is ideally suited for an initial evaluation or an intake
assessment where a panoramic view is desired.
While broad in nature, the CPRS can also be seen as narrow
in scope, for it extracts information from only one source-
parents. Due to this limited scope, the CPRS cannot be used
as the sole instrument on which to base a diagnosis.
Research consistently shows the interrater reliability of
the CRS to be low to moderate. Reliability between mother
and father has been found to be between 0.59 and 0.35
(Conners and Fitzgerald), while reliability between parents
and teachers is even lower, from 0.33 (Barkley, 1988) to
0.03 (Chelune et al., 1986).
Such potential discrepancy in perception among raters, while
demonstrating the CRS's vulnerability to rater bias, adds
significant value to the scales diagnostic utility.
Comparisons between mother and father or between parents and
teachers may lend valuable diagnostic information regarding
consistency of behaviors and how they are perceived across
situations and observers. The latest revision offers a self-
report scale to add to the diagnostic battery. In addition,
a clinical interview, laboratory testing, and direct
observation may all complement the CRS to produce a well-
rounded, comprehensive picture. The consensus found in the
literature seems to support the idea that the CPRS is an
effective instrument at discerning normal children from
those with significant problems but is empirically unable
to function as a stand-alone diagnostic tool.
If a screening device is needed, there can be little doubt
that the CPRS is an excellent choice. It is time-and cost-
effective, easily distinguishes normals from a psychiatric
population, covers a broad range of behaviors, and is
available in an abbreviated form that is as equally
effective as the long form in identifying deviant behavior
(e.g., Zelko, 1991). As a research tool, the CPRS's
strengths lie in its brevity, ease of administration,
reliability across time, and sensitivity to treatment. While
the CPRS can be useful in identifying subjects for inclusion
in a normal control group, it is crucial to remember that
its discriminative power is not high enough to warrant its
use in selecting a homogenous experimental psychiatric group
(i.e., ADHD, Conduct Disorder, etc.). The use of the CPRS as
the sole basis for group inclusion is likely to produce
invalid results that will not bear up to the scrutiny of
cross-validation.
Despite its limited diagnostic utility, the CPRS appear to
be useful for monitoring treatment outcome. Well-controlled
studies have shown the Conners' Scales to be sensitive to a
wide array of treatments (e.g., psychopharmacological,
behavioral, dietary) among varied populations (e.g.,
hyperactive, autistic, cancer patients). The overwhelming
consensus among the literature points to the abbreviated
forms of the Conners' Scales as the ideal choice for
measuring treatment outcome (e.g., Conners and Pollock). In
addition to the empirical backing in the literature, the
use of the abbreviated forms is further supported by the
ease in which they are administered, completed, and scored.
Despite the misleading title (i.e., the HI), the abbreviated
forms represent the items found to be most sensitive to
treatment effects and are therefore the obvious choice when
deciding on a treatment outcome measure.
Two important points must be considered when using the
Conners' Scales to monitor therapeutic progress. First,
there is well-documented evidence of a significant drop in
scores from the first to the second administration of the
CRS (e.g., Conners; DiTraglia and Fischer). Such a drop
could produce the erroneous impression that a treatment is
effective if only the first and second administrations are
considered (e.g., baseline vs. posttreatment). For this
reason, the Conners' Scales should be administered twice
before treatment is initiated, with comparisons being drawn
between the second and subsequent administrations.
Second, research has shown that as a measure of global
behavior, the CRS are subject to rater bias, which may
influence how a particular treatment is perceived. For
example, DiTraglia (1991) found that while teachers
considered the therapeutic effects of methylphenidate to be
significant, parents did not, suggesting that perhaps the
effects that one rater considered beneficial (i.e., overall
dampening of behavior), the other considered deleterious.
Conners et al. (1976) found a high rate of agreement between
parents and teachers when a nonpharmacological treatment was
used, providing further evidence that the Conners' Scales
may be particularly susceptible to rater perception.
In the almost 30 years since its development, the CPRS has
become a standard in the assessment of ADD with
Hyperactivity. Unfortunately, its use has not been so well
standardized. The misuse of the CPRS seems to stem from the
scale's earliest years of development when both researchers
and clinicians applied the CRS in the absence of solid
empirical backing and without the necessary guidance of an
officially published manual. As a result of this early
misuse, the CPRS continues to be applied outside the scope
of its proven effectiveness and to be misrepresented in the
literature.
Conners designed the ratings scales to be brief, easy to
score, and easy to administer. These qualities are
particularly useful when multiple administrations are
necessary or if time and expense are necessary
considerations. The likelihood that an important area is
overlooked on initial assessment is significantly reduced
due to the CPRS's broad scope and standardized
administration. This highly standardized nature of the
scales also allows for more relevant comparisons of scores
to the normative base that is now an integral part of the
solid empirical foundation behind the CPRS.
Thus, research identifies three primary uses for the CPRS: a
general screen for psychopathology, an ancillary diagnostic
aid, and a general treatment outcome measure. While the CPRS
easily identifies children manifesting problematic behavior,
it fails to consistently separate those children along
diagnostic lines. Due to this shortcoming and its
sensitivity to deviant behavior, the CPRS should not be used
to diagnose, but rather as a screening device to help
target children potentially in need of medical or
psychological treatment. Even though the CPRS should not be
used alone to diagnose, its comprehensive approach and
standardized administration provide a solid complement to
any diagnostic evaluation. Lastly, treatment outcome can be
easily monitored through the use [of] the abbreviated scales
contained within the CPRS. By design these abbreviated
scales, in addition to providing simplicity and increasing
compliance, are especially effective in detecting behavior
change in response to treatment.
As the CRS have firmly entrenched themselves over the last
30 years as a standard assessment tool in the diagnosis of
attentional disorders, it is unlikely that their use will
diminish. On the contrary, with the release of the most
current edition of the CRS, there appears to be a concerted
effort to reintroduce the scales as a "new family of
diagnostic rating scales for children and adolescents"
(Conners, 1997), to refine the utility of the scales, and
to provide a more solid empirical foundation for their use
through an expanded normative population. The current body
of literature, as stated previously, is lacking in studies
directly targeting the CPRS. If the use of the scales is to
appropriately continue, further research aimed specifically
at the CRS is needed to more precisely define the role that
the scales should, and are able to, play.
The latest revision of the CRS offers researchers an
opportunity to more systematically and accurately explore
the properties of the CRS. Though the most recent revision
of the CRS does not differ drastically from the previous
revisions, it does contain additional items (i.e., ADHD
Index, DSM-IV Symptoms subscale) that need to be empirically
validated. Due to the latest revision's similarity to
previous editions, the opportunity also exists to reevaluate
the scales' psychometric properties that have been accepted
(almost blindly) by the psychological community. By focusing
future research efforts on the most recent edition of the
CRS while bearing in mind the limitations revealed in
previous studies, perhaps strides can be made towards a
greater understanding of this widely accepted but poorly
understood instrument.”
I noticed two comments in particular in the above article:
"It is of utmost importance when using the CPRS to keep in
mind the myriad of potential influences that may
significantly alter scores."
"While the CPRS easily identifies children manifesting
problematic behavior [Excuse me? Simple observation, does
that, too - and it doesn't cost $168 a go!], it fails to
consistently separate those children along diagnostic lines.
Due to this shortcoming and its sensitivity to deviant
behavior, the CPRS should not be used to diagnose, but
rather as a screening device to help target children
potentially in need of medical or psychological treatment."
Those comments suggest to me that, firstly, the Conners’
Rating Scales are about as scientific as a pop survey in a
teen magazine; secondly, they clearly shouldn’t be used to
diagnose ‘ADHD’!
But, I know that they ARE used to diagnose ‘ADHD’ – from
what I’ve read, they’re the most popular method used for
that purpose. When I posted a question about this at the
discussion forum of Texans For Safe Education, this is the
reply I got from one of its members:
"Hello Bob,
The points are interesting you brought up. Most of the
parents I have been involved with... I keep hearing from the
parents the same story....In most cases the Neurologist or
Peds doc....takes a gander at the scale....may ask a few
questions read rapidly off a mini "IQ" test and then reaches
for the prescription pad to write a script for a
psychotropic such as MPH. So in essence the doc has used
that tool in the article to diagnose. Just the opposite
[of] what the article says. Some parents have been
fortunate to have some doctor do at least a BP and listen
to the heart and stretching it looking at the eyes. But
most appointments have lasted no more than a half hour at
the most.....I had one that lasted 12 minutes."
So, there we have it. A child with the symptoms of the brain
disease encephalitis will typically be diagnosed using a
combination of the child’s medical history, a neurological
examination, blood and urine tests, brain imaging tests and
a spinal tap. A child with the ‘symptoms’ of the ‘brain
disease’ ‘ADHD’ will typically be ‘diagnosed’ by ticking
boxes on a questionnaire.
This has apparently been going on for many years – to the
extent that there are now millions of children diagnosed
with ‘ADHD’. Parents have been informed that their child
may have a ‘neurobiological disorder’ – a ‘brain disease’
- yet a ‘diagnosis’ of that allegedly serious affliction
has then been achieved (sometimes, it seems, in a matter of
minutes!) using little more than a pop survey!!
Why have the parents not noticed the highly suspicious and
rather obvious discrepancy?
------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not up to speed with The Candlelight Project and
would like to read about it from the beginning, please
visit the following web page and read from Parental
Intelligence Issue 49:
http://www.topica.com/lists/pintel/read
If you'd like to read The Parental Intelligence Report on
'ADHD', published May 2003, please send a blank email to:
pire-@getresponse.com
To discover more of the truth about 'ADHD', please visit:
ADHD Fraud
http://www.adhdfraud.org/
Death From Ritalin
http://www.ritalindeath.com/
A.S.P.I.R.E.
http://www.aspire.us/
Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses
(Download a free copy of "A Colt of a Booklet" while you're
there!)
http://www.wildestcolts.com/
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
http://www.cchr.org/
Able Child - Parents for Label and Drug Free Education
http://ablechild.org/
Fight For Kids
http://www.fightforkids.org/
See you next week on the Candlelight Trail!
------------------------------------------------------------
======= HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE! =======
------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************
LIVING FREE: HOW TO BEAT THE SYSTEM - AND GROW RICH
by Phil Gosling - "Britain's most successful author
no-one's ever heard of".
Read Part One AND Part Two of this totally revised and
updated Millennium Edition of one of the best-selling
educational courses of the early 1990s ABSOLUTELY FREE.
Please visit:
http://shrinkmylink.com/pmc
************************************************************
************************************************************
THE UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE SELF-CONFIDENCE COURSE
by Roger Elliott and Mark Tyrrell
Would you like to feel you could do anything?
Sign up here for the FREE 6-part Self Confidence Course:
http://shrinkmylink.com/rmc
************************************************************
************************************************************
DOUG BENCH'S BRAIN STUFF
Learn the SCIENCE of PERMANENT Self-Motivation. So you
don't have to go back again and again and again, and spend
more and more and more money for a short term fix!
Scientific facts do not lie and do not fail, and neither
will you! Guaranteed!
*** 7 Mini-Science Lessons for Maxi-Success ***
This Course is FREE, and a great starting point for you to
run toward the Science of Permanent Self-Motivation.
Subscribe to the 7 Mini-Science Lessons for Maxi-Success
course and to Doug Bench's free Neuroscience Self-Motivation
News at his Science for Success website:
http://shrinkmylink.com/tmc
************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECTS OF INTEREST
The Natural Child Project
Parent, homeschooler, author and psychologist Jan Hunt
shares her vision of the world in which all children are
treated with dignity, respect, understanding and compassion.
http://www.naturalchild.org/
The Parenting Project
A non-profit organization founded in 1995 by parent advocate
and mother of three Suzy Garfinkle Chevrier working to bring
parenting, empathy and nurturing skills education to all
school age children and teens.
http://www.parentingproject.org/
Project HappyChild
Penny Rollo Midas' extraordinary extravaganza of resources
for children and parents. Started in 1998, it's now more
than 7,000 pages and still growing!
http://www.happychild.org.uk/
Project Renaissance
Creative thinking pioneer Win Wenger's core mission is to
enable as many human beings as possible to become more than
a match for the situations, opportunities and problems or
difficulties that they find around them, and to enjoy a
richer quality of life and experience.
http://www.winwenger.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you've enjoyed this issue of Parental Intelligence!
Issue 63 will be published on 13 October 2003
PLEASE RECOMMEND PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS
WHO HAVE CHILDREN - THEY'LL THANK YOU FOR IT!
Do you have any comments or suggestions? Would you
like to contribute an article?
mailto:quauss-@hotmail.com
Please include the words "Parental Intelligence" in the
subject line.
This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. You are
receiving it because you requested a subscription, or it
has been forwarded to you by a friend.
If you're not a subscriber and you'd like to subscribe,
please either visit
http://www.topica.com/lists/pintel
or send a blank email to:
pintel-s-@topica.com
If you want to unsubscribe for any reason, please see the
unsubscribe instructions at the end of this newsletter.
Copyright (c) 2003, Bob Collier except where indicated
otherwise.
Published by:
Bob Collier
3 Goldie Place
Kambah
CANBERRA
ACT 2902
Australia
mailto:quauss-@hotmail.com
Have a happy and successful day!
------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is this bloke?" Find out more about the publisher of
Parental Intelligence by sending a blank email to:
bobco-@getresponse.com
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
 |
|
