tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22861867.post6784296564917056599..comments2009-01-11T07:03:10.430-08:00Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11536734331366279894noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22861867.post-79859177276978784762009-01-11T07:03:00.000-08:002009-01-11T07:03:00.000-08:00I don't either, Phil. <BR/><BR/>If I were to guess, perhaps they are (circularly) reasoning that newer studies would find a higher prevalence because there's been a real rise in autism.Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11536734331366279894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22861867.post-19791416617088006082009-01-11T06:55:00.000-08:002009-01-11T06:55:00.000-08:00Why is the year of the Williams et al. study, in fact, a confound? I don't understand.Phil Schwarzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15510151176700173298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22861867.post-17144872765532011732009-01-10T18:11:00.000-08:002009-01-10T18:11:00.000-08:00@Do'C: They give a reason why they didn't choose the number from Williams et al. (2006). That is what I already mentioned: It's confounded by the year of the study in the researchers' opinion. I'm guessing they didn't find other data they could use?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I find it hard to imagine that they didn't do the calculation with the Williams et al. number.Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11536734331366279894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22861867.post-88071035378252397282009-01-10T12:17:00.000-08:002009-01-10T12:17:00.000-08:00<I>I say it's interesting, because the researchers choose this one number, based on a single Finnish study, in favor of the results of a meta-study, Williams et al. (2006).</I><BR/><BR/>Hi Joseph.<BR/><BR/>Did the authors explain why the solitary Finnish study was chosen?Do'Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04217547072666798606noreply@blogger.com