2 ms·
yes, you're right about that being a misinterpretation of 'could not reject the null hypothesis'. i couldn't get the full text of the meta-analysis, but i've r
by parpfish 2y ago
yes, you're right about that being a misinterpretation of 'could not reject the null hypothesis'.
i couldn't get the full text of the meta-analysis, but i've read similar studies in the past and one critical effect was that parent's ratings about perceived hyperactivity were heavily affected by whether the parent thought their child received sugar but there was no effect detected based on whether the children actually received sugar.
so it doesn't completely rule out whether sugar has an effect, but it does show that parental 'hyperactivity detectors' are broken and will be biased based on whether they think their kid had sugar (so you and everybody else should look at your anecdotal expereience with suspicion)
- zug_zug 2y ago> but it does show that parental 'hyperactivity detectors' are broken I'll grant that some are for sure. But it doesn't mean other parents can't quietly and effectively notice their children's responses to various foods. Frankly any sort of research on behaviors imo should eventually move to scoring by completely objective measures (e.g. computer assessment of whether they can watch a screen for 30 seconds and how often they look away, or whether they can read a paragraph)
- parpfish 2y agoobjective measures would be great for the physiological questions about a link between sugar and hyperactivity. but these studies are about our cultural beliefs in the link between sugar and hyperactivity which requires subjective measures.
- SiempreViernes 2y agoThat seems pretty pointless given that the "hyperactivity" under study is a condition operationally defined by asking the parent.