Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#41

Post by fweespee_ch »

eruditely wrote: post #36
fweespee_ch wrote: post #14

> The youngest students were between 20 percent and 100 percent more likely to get the diagnosis or ADHD medication than were the oldest students in the cohort, says Helga Zoëga, an epidemiologist at the University of Iceland who worked on the Icelandic and Israeli studies. > "Within that age range there is a huge difference in developmental and social and emotional maturity," says Dr. Adiaha Spinks-Franklin, a devel…

ADHD is a developmental disorder, they're 30% behind their peers anyways in exec functioning(front part of brain) in development, it's called "Barkley's 30% rule" It's very severe and bad but goes away if you just take your meds. So if you're 18, you're when people were at 12.5 in your ability to perceive time/planning. It's worse than having low intelligence, EF deficits. ""By adolescence, these chronic and cumulati…

> The best thing for worried parents to do is just give the kids a chance to grow up, Chen says. In most of the studies done on relative age and ADHD, the difference in diagnosis rates vanished by the time the students reached their teenage years. "I think we have to wait for a while, he says. "We have to have more time to evaluate their behavior, attention and brain development."

The problem is they are diagnosing 6-7 year olds and not diagnosing true peers but using proxies for age.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#42

Post by eruditely »

fweespee_ch wrote: post #41
eruditely wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ADHD is a developmental disorder, they're 30% behind their peers anyways in exec functioning(front part of brain) in development, it's called "Barkley's 30% rule" It's very severe and bad but goes away if you just take your meds. So if you're 18, you're when people were at 12.5 in your ability to perceive time/planning. It's worse than having low intelligence, EF deficits. ""By adolescence, these chronic and cumulati…

> The best thing for worried parents to do is just give the kids a chance to grow up, Chen says. In most of the studies done on relative age and ADHD, the difference in diagnosis rates vanished by the time the students reached their teenage years. "I think we have to wait for a while, he says. "We have to have more time to evaluate their behavior, attention and brain development." The problem is they are diagnosing 6…

False. The most cited person is Russell Barkley and his advice is the one that goes through. His work is considered a paradigm shift that the literature revolves around. We know it is very severe from the 4th edition it states there have been over 300 studies done on stimulants in kids in ADHD and we know it's safe. Wait till they're in high school but it's too powerful to be overcome, sorry, it's strict consensus and well corroborated. Not even high intelligence is powerful enough to overcome it.

It's a developmental disorder, their brains aren't done developing until they're in their late twenties or early thirties, you can't "wait it out".

http://www.drthomasebrown.com/pdfs/HighIQAdults.JADonlinever... Look read it. It's a well known fact working memory decides school performance better than I.Q. (I can grab that study) look at those ratios.

I have it. I'm aware of the literature.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lG2w3PAAAAAJ&hl=en

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/289931.php ^^ ADHD DOUBLES-QUADRUPLES your mortality rate. If you're a girl it's 3x the average person. It's severe.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#43

Post by over »

DanBC wrote: post #40
adrusi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely understand why using fear to control children is a bad thing, but as for violence, it's at the root of all power anyway. Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Fear is clearly not a great way of controlling your children, bu…

> Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Jesus fucking christ no it isn't. Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. Don't hit children. Learn how to parent. The…

> Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping.

You're right, but he also has a point in that eventually, if you just don't do things, the cops will drag you away. Eventual violence is a cornerstone of order in our society. I find this unpalatable, but at least another cornerstone of order is motivation to do good things.

Just as short timeouts are not solitary confinement, open-handed slaps on the butt are not gang beatings. It's generally the parent that determines whether the punishment is abusive, not the type of punishment itself.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#44

Post by fweespee_ch »

eruditely wrote: post #42
fweespee_ch wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best thing for worried parents to do is just give the kids a chance to grow up, Chen says. In most of the studies done on relative age and ADHD, the difference in diagnosis rates vanished by the time the students reached their teenage years. "I think we have to wait for a while, he says. "We have to have more time to evaluate their behavior, attention and brain development." The problem is they are diagnosing 6…

False. The most cited person is Russell Barkley and his advice is the one that goes through. His work is considered a paradigm shift that the literature revolves around. We know it is very severe from the 4th edition it states there have been over 300 studies done on stimulants in kids in ADHD and we know it's safe. Wait till they're in high school but it's too powerful to be overcome, sorry, it's strict consensus an…

1) Correct diagnosis is important.

2) ADHD meds have side effects.

http://childmind.org/article/side-effects-of-adhd-medication...

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#45

Post by ThrustVectoring »

bsder wrote: post #24

ADHD -- middle class children with behaviors that annoy elementary school teachers If they're poor, you call them thick. If they're rich, you get them a tutor. If they're middle class, you medicate them.

Or middle class children with behavior that annoys their parents.

Well, it's both that and a legitimate medical condition. The problem is that the medication that works for ADHD also works for suppressing childish behavior that authority figures find annoying. Everyone involved are fallible humans that respond to incentives, and often the incentives align for teachers, parents, and psychiatrists to medicate children into compliance.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#46

Post by crapolasplatter »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #45
bsder wrote: post #24

ADHD -- middle class children with behaviors that annoy elementary school teachers If they're poor, you call them thick. If they're rich, you get them a tutor. If they're middle class, you medicate them.

Or middle class children with behavior that annoys their parents. Well, it's both that and a legitimate medical condition. The problem is that the medication that works for ADHD also works for suppressing childish behavior that authority figures find annoying. Everyone involved are fallible humans that respond to incentives, and often the incentives align for teachers, parents, and psychiatrists to medicate children…

Or kids who actually have a problem. ADHD is not only hyper activity. Many have an attention disorder with no hyper activity issue.

Actually those are the most at risk because they seldom stand out or are called out for having a problem ,except with their grades.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#47

Post by adrusi »

DanBC wrote: post #40
adrusi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely understand why using fear to control children is a bad thing, but as for violence, it's at the root of all power anyway. Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Fear is clearly not a great way of controlling your children, bu…

> Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Jesus fucking christ no it isn't. Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. Don't hit children. Learn how to parent. The…

I'm not a parent. I do work with kids in a limited capacity, as a volunteer. I obviously don't use any corporal discipline in that context, and if I had children of my own I wouldn't have the heart to hit them. I'm just interested in the theory of it; are we sure that corporal punishment isn't more effective in a practical utilitarian sense, and, if we are, what explains the difference.

Jesus fucking christ no it isn't. Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping.

The point is that eventually if you refuse to comply it will lead to violence. It might be indirect, and in some cases it will sound contrived, but everything eventually comed down to an implied threat of violence. If you don't file a report, you might experience some minor consequences. Probably the sort of thing you can't refuse to comply with. If you keep failing to file reports you might be fired or at least suspended. If you don't respect that and continue to show up for work, they'll probably have security throw you out. If you come back in they'll probably call the police and you'll be arrested for trespassing. If you resist arrest, you might find yourself subject to violence. This is to say that every threat boils down to a violent threat, and therefore every threat is inherently violent; threatening your kid with a revocation of privilege is violent.

Time outs are not long - one minute per year of age. A 12 year old gets a 12 minute time out.

A time out doesn't apply for everything kids do. Great when you're watching them and they misbehave, but that doesn't account for everything. If you catch your 10 year old stealing, you're not going to put them in time out. If your eight year old beats some kid up, you're not going to put them in time out. I would consider any form of corporal punishment too much of an ordeal for the things a time out would be appropriate for. I was refering to inflicting pain on your child as an alternative to grounding them.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#48

Post by rtpg »

Spooky23 wrote: post #21

It's a great illustration of the lack of rigor around this stuff. My college provided significant benefits to ADHD diagnosed students. Rather than take finals in stadium seating, you got a personal, air conditioned office, received unlimited time and could use reference material. A few of my friends found a "Do you need Ritalin" quizzes in a magazine, went to a doc-in-the-box and got the diagnosis. They sold the Rita…

This is very belittling to the amazing amount of research that goes into ADHD.

Many studies have been done with regard to treatment and diagnosis, and at this point we are better able to treat ADHD than we are able to treat depression

There might be a bit of an over-treatment culture (I'm not sure, though), but the science is extremely well developed and tested

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#49

Post by ap22213 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #21

It's a great illustration of the lack of rigor around this stuff. My college provided significant benefits to ADHD diagnosed students. Rather than take finals in stadium seating, you got a personal, air conditioned office, received unlimited time and could use reference material. A few of my friends found a "Do you need Ritalin" quizzes in a magazine, went to a doc-in-the-box and got the diagnosis. They sold the Rita…

There's probably over diagnosis, but since ADHD medications are safe at low doses, there's not much downside with over diagnosis. On the other hand, there's 2-8% of the general population that has ADHD, and those individuals gain significant benefits from medication.

If you're unsure if ADHD really exists, it may be useful to read the genetic studies that show ADHD correlation with specific SNPs, and decide for yourself [1]. Personally, I find the evidence satisfactory.

That said, I personally believe that ADHD type symptoms could be caused by several different disorders. ADHD is kind of like bipolar disorder - it covers a lot of areas and is sort of a fallback category when other diagnosis don't fit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=ADHD,SNP

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#50

Post by DanBC »

adrusi wrote: post #47
DanBC wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Jesus fucking christ no it isn't. Your boss doesn't punch you for not filing your TPS reports; your spouse doesn't hit you for not doing the shopping. Don't hit children. Learn how to parent. The…

I'm not a parent. I do work with kids in a limited capacity, as a volunteer. I obviously don't use any corporal discipline in that context, and if I had children of my own I wouldn't have the heart to hit them. I'm just interested in the theory of it; are we sure that corporal punishment isn't more effective in a practical utilitarian sense, and, if we are, what explains the difference. Jesus fucking christ no it isn…

Hang on, you're using violent in a strange and unusual way which makes your point confusing.

> If you catch your 10 year old stealing, you're not going to put them in time out.

Just checking, but are you saying you'd hit them? Why wouldn't you put them in time out?

> If your eight year old beats some kid up, you're not going to put them in time out.

Why not?

> I would consider any form of corporal punishment too much of an ordeal for the things a time out would be appropriate for. I was refering to inflicting pain on your child as an alternative to grounding them.

Grounding does not work. Grounding is applied for far too long. This is a mistake commonly made by incompetent parents. "Grounding" a child for 15 minutes is as effective as grounding them for a day or a week, and avoids the severe downsides.

It's genuinely scary that you have any contact with children when your knowledge of safe effective discipline is so clearly lacking. If you were in the UK I'd be contacting child safeguarding boards about the organisation you volunteer for.

Post reply on HN