LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070508/hl_nm/..._performance_dc When researchers linked standardized test scores of 1,667,391 Indiana students in grades 3 through 10 with the month in which each student had been conceived, they found that children conceived May through August scored significantly lower on math and language tests than children conceived during other months of the year. The correlation between test scores and conception season held regardless of race, gender, and grade level. ----- I wonder if it held steady for socio-economic status as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I guess I'll be the one to point out the question that should have been asked in regards to this study. What is the grade-level cut-off date for these schools? Think about it. Many schools, the date is 9/1 - that date determines which grade children are placed in (with, of course, a few exceptions). So, the kids whose birthdays are closer to 9/1 on the early side are older than the ones at the end of the year-period. A kid born on 10/1 is older than one born on 6/1. Since school starts with kindergarten at age 3-ish, that year difference in development is enormous, and kids who start behind are likely to stay behind. So even though in the third grade the age difference is lesser, the trend has been established. So, let's apply that logic here. If the conception period in question is May through August, and a pregnancy lasts 9 months or so (its actually a little more than that, but there are some premies too, so let's use 9 months), then they are typically born in the February through May period - not surprisingly, in the back end of the period. These kids are in the younger half. This is a significant influence on the statistic, and since they are using grade-level for the study, I call B.S. If they were serious about neutralizing that factor, they should have used a test given may times during the year to children all around the same actual age. Then do the comparisons. That would be more valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 This is a significant influence on the statistic, and since they are using grade-level for the study, I call B.S. If that was the reason, then shouldn't the study also have concluded that kids conceived in Sep/Oct/Nov are the smartest and kids in the other six months are in the middle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) If that was the reason, then shouldn't the study also have concluded that kids conceived in Sep/Oct/Nov are the smartest and kids in the other six months are in the middle? Well, actually, I think then it would be the other way around. But in any case, if one side of the class in terms of birthdates is not as smart, which appears to be the case here... then yes, they should have seen the other side as well. But I don't see them acknowledging that factor at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Maybe there was no deviation at the other end. The other 8 months might have equal results. That would explain why they were looking for a reason (the pesticide spraying) that the summer months had poor scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts