Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:07:11.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twin Children in Volunteer Registries: Biases in Parental Participation and Reporting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

D.A. Hay ,
C. Clifford ,
P. Derrick ,
J. Hopper ,
B. Renard  and
T.M. Theobald
D.A. Hay*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
C. Clifford
Affiliation:
Australian NHMRC Twin Registry, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
P. Derrick
Affiliation:
Australian NHMRC Twin Registry, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
J. Hopper
Affiliation:
Australian NHMRC Twin Registry, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
B. Renard
Affiliation:
Australian NHMRC Twin Registry, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
T.M. Theobald
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
*
Department of Psychology, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The biases in volutary participation by adult twins are well known but less attention has been paid to twin children where parents decide on participation and provide much of the information. Several aspects of reporting including the assessment of zygosity are compared in four large Australian data bases: 1) a nationwide compulsory (and hence representative) survey of literacy and numeracy; 2) a nationwide “Twins in School” survey of parents and teachers of twins run through Education Departments and AMBA, the parents organisation in conjunction with LaTrobe; 3) the LaTrobe Twin Study which is a longitudinal program involving frequent interactions between families and researchers, and 4) the Australian NHMRC Twin Registry which has surveyed a large sample of their families with twin children by mail. One potential bias comes when recruitment is on a continuing basis as in the LaTrobe Twin Study and the Australian Twin Registry when differences between “early” and “late” enrolling families arise. One difference between the four samples arose from parents being much more likely to contrast their twins and to report problems in one but not the other, whereas teachers' and psychologists' assessments of these same children generally reported much smaller intrapair differences. Future studies should have some common questions to provide comparative data on such biases. Key questions are proposed for this area, mainly on the perceived need for different forms of remediation, together with other recommendations about the minimal essential baseline data set for a registry.

Keywords

Twin registersSchoolingFamilies of twinsZygosity assessmentParental bias
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 71 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Akker, OBA van den, Stein, GS, Neale, MC, Murray, RM (1987): Genetic and environmental variation in menstrual cycle: Histories of two British twin samples. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:541–548.Google Scholar
2.Boyle, MHet al (1987): Ontario Child Health Study. I: Methodology. Arch Gen Psychiat 44:826–831.Google Scholar
3.Bryan, EM (1983): The Nature and Nurture of Twins. London: Bailliere Tindall.Google Scholar
4.Doherty, JDH, Lancaster, PAL (1986): The secular trend of twinning in Australia, 1853-1982. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 35:61–76.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Fabsitz, RR, Kalousdian, S, Carmelli, D, Robinette, D, Christian, JC (1988): Characteristics of participants and non-participants in the NHLBI Twin Study. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 37:217–228.Google Scholar
6.Gleeson, C, Hay, DA, Johnston, CJ, Theobald, TM (1990): “Twins in School” - An Australiawide program. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (in press).Google Scholar
7.Goldberg, J, True, W, Eisen, S, Henderson, W, Robinette, CD (1987): The Vietnam Era Twin (VET) Registry: Ascertainment bias. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:67–78.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Hay, DA, O'Brien, PJ (1983): The LaTrobe Twin Study: A genetic approach to the structure and development of cognition in twin children. Child Dev 54:317–330.Google Scholar
9.Hay, DA, O'Brien, PJ, Johnston, CJ, Prior, M (1984): The high incidence of reading disability in twin boys and its implications for genetic analysis. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 33:223–236.Google Scholar
10.Hay, DA, Collett, SM, Johnston, CJ, O'Brien, PJ, Prior, M (1986): Do twins and singletons have the same language and reading problems? In Pratt, C, Garton, AF, Turner, WE, Nesdale, AR (eds): Research Issues in Child Development. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp 125–134.Google Scholar
11.Hay, DA, O'Brien, PJ (1987): Early influences on the school social adjustment of twins. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:239–248.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Hopper, JL, Culross, PR (1983): Covariation between family members as a function of cohabitation history. Behav Genet 13:459–471.Google Scholar
13.Kallen, B (1986): Congenital malformations in twins: A population study. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 35:167–178.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Kaprio, J, Rose, RJ, Sarna, S, Langinvanio, H, Koskenvuo, M, Rita, H, Heikkla, L (1987): Design and sampling considerations, response rates, and representativeness in a Finnish twin family study. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:79–93.Google Scholar
15.Kendler, KS, Heath, AC, Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ (1987): Symptoms of anxiety and depression: Same genes, different environments? Arch Gen Psychiat 44:451–457.Google Scholar
16.Kendler, KS, Holm, NV (1985): Differential enrolment in twin registries: Its effect on prevalence and concordance rates and estimates of genetic parameters. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 34:125–140.Google Scholar
17.Lykken, DT, Tellegren, A, DeRubies, R (1978): Volunteer bias in twin research: The rule of two-thirds. Soc Biol 25:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Martin, NG, Wilson, SR (1982): Bias in the estimation of heritability from truncated samples of twins. Behav Genet 12:467–472.Google Scholar
19.Nance, WE, Neale, MC (1989): Partitioned twin analysis: A power study. Behav Genet 19:143–150.Google Scholar
20.Nichols, R, Bilbro, WC (1966): The diagnosis of twin zygosity. Acta Genet Stat Med 16:265–275.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Stevenson, J, Fielding, J (1985): Ratings of temperament in families of young twins Br J Dev Psychol 3:143–152.Google Scholar
22.Tambs, K, Sundet, JM, Berg, K (1985): Cotwin closeness in monozygotic and dizygotic twins: A biasing factor in IQ heritability analysis? Acta Genet Med Gemellol 34:33–39.Google Scholar
23.Teikari, JM, Kaprio, J, Koskenvuo, M, Vannas, A (1987): Ophthalmic disease in twins: A nationwide record linkage study of hospital discharges and free medications for 16,067 twin pairs. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:523–534.Google Scholar
24.Vlietinck, R, Derom, C, Derom, R, Van den Berghe, H, Thiery, M (1988): The validity of Weinberg's rule in the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS) Acta Genet Med Gemellol 37:137–141.Google ScholarPubMed
25.Vlietinck, R, Derom, R, Neale, MC, Maes, H, van Loon, H, Derom, C, Thiery, M (1989): Genetic and environmental variation in the birth weight of twins. Behav Genet 19:151–161.Google Scholar
26.Windle, M (1988): Psychometric strategies of measures of temperament: A methodological critique. Int J Behav Dev 11:171–201.Google Scholar