This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
In Reply—Dr Russman (Am J Dis Child 130:445,1976) makes a good case for early detection and intervention for preschoolers with short attention spans. However, the detection of children with visual-motor-perceptual problems prior to entering school is of more questionable value, considering the maturational aspects of this limitation. His suggestion that better educational programs for teachers and physicians would end the "damage-dysfunction" confusion misses the point. Even after the majority of professionals had this clear in their own minds (as most do already), most parents and children would still think and talk in terms of "damage." Finally, we both agree that diagnostic trials of stimulants are uninformative and unwarranted. However, in my experience, many physicians, educators, and psychologists do not know this, but carry the mistaken notion that a striking response to stimulants connotes an organic causation.
Dr Zuckerman restricts his remarks to psychological tests. If these tests help with
SCHMITT BD. Minimal Brain Dysfunction Myth-Reply. Am J Dis Child. 1976;130(8):901–902. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1976.02120090110024
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: