[Skip to Navigation]
August 1976

Minimal Brain Dysfunction Myth-Reply

Author Affiliations

Pediatric Outpatient Department University of Colorado Medical Center 4200 E Ninth Ave Denver, CO 80220

Am J Dis Child. 1976;130(8):901-902. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1976.02120090110024

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

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution