Reply to Cicchetti, Kaufman, and Sparrow

Authors

  • Nynke Weisglas-Kuperus,

    Corresponding author
    1. Erasmus-MC–Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    • Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC–Sophia Children's Hospital, P.O. Box 2060, 5000 CB Rotterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: n.weisglas@erasmusmc.nl
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hestien J. I. Vreugdenhil,

    1. Erasmus-MC–Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Paul G. H. Mulder

    1. Erasmus-MC–Institute of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

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. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 41: 665–668, 2004.

Ancillary