Abstract
<h3>In Reply.</h3> —The skewed age distribution is not due to an atypical sample or to poorer survival of younger children, but is due simply to the fact that ALL survival started to improve only during the 1970s. Thus, by 1989, when the interview was conducted, subjects treated at a young age were still not old enough to be eligible. Since we were interested in events of adulthood, we would have to wait another 10 years, until 1999, for the survival cohort to resemble an incidence cohort. With regard to the concern about the measures of scholastic achievement, we expect that the "rigor of academic programs" would be equally distributed across survivors and controls, especially because so many different schools are represented across many states in this study. We did not attempt to obtain verification of subjects' reported grades in school; in fact, the reliability of self-report data should be equally
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
