 
Close relatives of people with autism often have subtle differences in the way they move their eyes, researchers said in a finding that might help doctors better diagnose and treat the condition.
The differences would not be noticeable in everyday life but they strongly suggest that many components of autism are inherited, the University of Illinois at Chicago team said. “What we hope these tests do is to identify subgroups of individuals or subgroups of families that have some sort of risk for autism,” Matthew Mosconi, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.
“The eye movement differences are the same as the ones that we saw previously in the kids with autism. It is a way to get at the functioning of these specific brain systems that we think are part of the development of autism.”
Read in Full:Â http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Eye-movement-tests-show-family-autism-link/articleshow/6251020.cms
 
Monday, August 2, 2010 – Autism Unexpected by Jean Winegardner
SILVER SPRING, Md. — When I write here, I use the words “person with autism” and “autistic person” pretty interchangeably. Every once in a while, this column gets a comment telling me I should use “person first” language, meaning I shouldn’t use the word “autistic” to describe a person.
Because I’ve heard this criticism more than once, I feel it necessary to tell you that I not only use the word “autistic” intentionally, but thoughtfully and with purpose.
The theory behind person-first language (“person with autism”) is that it recognizes the person before the disability and stresses that there is more to a person than just autism. I asked my blog readers and my Twitter followers which they preferred, and the majority, mostly parents of children with autism, reported that they prefer the person-first terminology.
Person-first language is an easy philosophy to accept. It makes complete sense, and I find it to be a perfectly reasonable way of thought. However, I tend not to prefer it. The reasons for rejecting person-first are more complicated, but, I believe, equally valid.
I use the adjective “autistic” for several reasons. I have taken my cues from many autistic adults who self-identify as autistic. For these individuals, autism is simply a part of them that cannot be separated from who they are. Autism is, in a way, a description of how their brains work, not something that has been added to their being. Without autism, they would not be the same person; therefore it is not something they have, but rather something they are.
Autistic adult and autism activist Jim Sinclair wrote a very clear, articulate essay about why he dislikes person-first language. This essay lays out why he identifies as an autistic person, and his reasons are very similar to mine.
I use “autistic” because I don’t see autism as an affliction but rather as a character or physical trait (such as blond, nice, intelligent or short) or as a major life characteristic (such as religion or race). Often, person-first language refers to a disease: “living with cancer,” “a person with lupus,” or “has AIDS.” I think this type of language, while not necessarily wrong, doesn’t work with autism in that it tends to pathologize the condition, which I do not see as a disease but rather a way of being.
My entire goal with my son is to raise him as a proud autistic person. He is what he is, and that is wonderful. I want to teach him that his autism is a part of him that gives him the gift of being able to think differently. It also gives him challenges, and he needs to learn how to compensate for those shortcomings. But, I don’t want him to think he has this extra thing that makes him less.
Read in Full:Â http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/autism-unexpected/2010/aug/2/autistic-or-person-autism/
Â
Monday, August 2, 2010 – Autism Unexpected by Jean Winegardner
SILVER SPRING, Md. — When I write here, I use the words “person with autism” and “autistic person” pretty interchangeably. Every once in a while, this column gets a comment telling me I should use “person first” language, meaning I shouldn’t use the word “autistic” to describe a person.
Because I’ve heard this criticism more than once, I feel it necessary to tell you that I not only use the word “autistic” intentionally, but thoughtfully and with purpose.
The theory behind person-first language (“person with autism”) is that it recognizes the person before the disability and stresses that there is more to a person than just autism. I asked my blog readers and my Twitter followers which they preferred, and the majority, mostly parents of children with autism, reported that they prefer the person-first terminology.
Person-first language is an easy philosophy to accept. It makes complete sense, and I find it to be a perfectly reasonable way of thought. However, I tend not to prefer it. The reasons for rejecting person-first are more complicated, but, I believe, equally valid.
I use the adjective “autistic” for several reasons. I have taken my cues from many autistic adults who self-identify as autistic. For these individuals, autism is simply a part of them that cannot be separated from who they are. Autism is, in a way, a description of how their brains work, not something that has been added to their being. Without autism, they would not be the same person; therefore it is not something they have, but rather something they are.
Autistic adult and autism activist Jim Sinclair wrote a very clear, articulate essay about why he dislikes person-first language. This essay lays out why he identifies as an autistic person, and his reasons are very similar to mine.
I use “autistic” because I don’t see autism as an affliction but rather as a character or physical trait (such as blond, nice, intelligent or short) or as a major life characteristic (such as religion or race). Often, person-first language refers to a disease: “living with cancer,” “a person with lupus,” or “has AIDS.” I think this type of language, while not necessarily wrong, doesn’t work with autism in that it tends to pathologize the condition, which I do not see as a disease but rather a way of being.
My entire goal with my son is to raise him as a proud autistic person. He is what he is, and that is wonderful. I want to teach him that his autism is a part of him that gives him the gift of being able to think differently. It also gives him challenges, and he needs to learn how to compensate for those shortcomings. But, I don’t want him to think he has this extra thing that makes him less.
Read in Full:Â http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/autism-unexpected/2010/aug/2/autistic-or-person-autism/
 
Â
ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2010) — Effective reading requires recognizing words and also understanding what they mean. Between 7-10 percent of children have specific reading-comprehension difficulties. These children can read text aloud accurately but do not understand what they have just read. A new study in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, identifies a training program which may help children overcome reading-comprehension difficulties.
Â
Psychological scientists Paula J. Clarke, Margaret J. Snowling, Emma Truelove, and Charles Hulme from the University of York in the United Kingdom conducted a study to see which of three intervention programs is most effective in improving children’s reading comprehension. Children (8- and 9-year olds) with reading-comprehension difficulties participated in one of three intervention programs: Text Comprehension training (TC), which emphasized metacognitive strategies (for example, re-reading and visualization) and involved working with written texts; Oral Language training (OL), which emphasized vocabulary and exclusively involved spoken language; and TC and OL training combined (COM) that integrated components from both training programs. Children’s performance was assessed before they started the training program, during the program, and 11 months after they completed their program.
Â
The results showed that while all three of the training programs helped to improve reading comprehension, the largest long-term gains occurred for children who were in the OL training group. According to the authors, “The OL and COM groups also showed improvements in knowledge of the meanings of words that they had been taught and these improvements, in turn, helped to account for these children’s improved reading comprehension skills.” That children in the OL training group showed more improvement than did children in the COM training group indicates that the total amount of time devoted to oral-language training (the COM training program relied on half as much oral-language training than did the OL intervention) may be crucial for overcoming reading-comprehension difficulties. The authors note their findings suggest that “deficits in oral vocabulary may be one important underlying cause of children’s reading-comprehension problems.”
Â
The results of this study have important implications for education and may help guide teachers in helping children overcome problems in reading comprehension.
Â
Source:Â
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802125846.htm
Â
ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2010) — Effective reading requires recognizing words and also understanding what they mean. Between 7-10 percent of children have specific reading-comprehension difficulties. These children can read text aloud accurately but do not understand what they have just read. A new study in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, identifies a training program which may help children overcome reading-comprehension difficulties.
Psychological scientists Paula J. Clarke, Margaret J. Snowling, Emma Truelove, and Charles Hulme from the University of York in the United Kingdom conducted a study to see which of three intervention programs is most effective in improving children’s reading comprehension. Children (8- and 9-year olds) with reading-comprehension difficulties participated in one of three intervention programs: Text Comprehension training (TC), which emphasized metacognitive strategies (for example, re-reading and visualization) and involved working with written texts; Oral Language training (OL), which emphasized vocabulary and exclusively involved spoken language; and TC and OL training combined (COM) that integrated components from both training programs. Children’s performance was assessed before they started the training program, during the program, and 11 months after they completed their program.
The results showed that while all three of the training programs helped to improve reading comprehension, the largest long-term gains occurred for children who were in the OL training group. According to the authors, “The OL and COM groups also showed improvements in knowledge of the meanings of words that they had been taught and these improvements, in turn, helped to account for these children’s improved reading comprehension skills.” That children in the OL training group showed more improvement than did children in the COM training group indicates that the total amount of time devoted to oral-language training (the COM training program relied on half as much oral-language training than did the OL intervention) may be crucial for overcoming reading-comprehension difficulties. The authors note their findings suggest that “deficits in oral vocabulary may be one important underlying cause of children’s reading-comprehension problems.”
The results of this study have important implications for education and may help guide teachers in helping children overcome problems in reading comprehension.
Source:Â http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802125846.htm
 
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on August 3, 2010Â
While analyzing the relationship between siblings, researchers discovered something about having a sister helps 10- to 14-year-olds not be sad.
That’s one of several intriguing findings from a new study on the impact siblings have on one another. Brigham Young University professor Laura Padilla-Walker is the lead author on the research, which also sorts out the influence of siblings and the influence of parents within families.
“Even after you account for parents’ influence, siblings do matter in unique ways,†said Padilla-Walker, who teaches in BYU’s School of Family Life.
“They give kids something that parents don’t.â€
Padilla-Walker’s research stems from BYU’s Flourishing Families Project and will appear in the August issue of the Journal of Family Psychology.
The study included 395 families with more than one child, at least one of whom was an adolescent between 10 and 14 years old. The researchers gathered a wealth of information about each family’s dynamic, then followed up one year later.
Statistical analyses showed that having a sister protected adolescents from feeling lonely, unloved, guilty, self-conscious and fearful. It didn’t matter whether the sister was younger or older, or how far apart the siblings were agewise.
Brothers mattered, too. The study found that having a loving sibling of either gender promoted good deeds, such as helping a neighbor or watching out for other kids at school. In fact, loving siblings fostered charitable attitudes more than loving parents did.
The relationship between sibling affection and good deeds was twice as strong as that between parenting and good deeds.
Read in Full:Â http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/03/sibling-relationships-strengthen-mental-and-life-skills/16330.html
Â
Â
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on August 3, 2010Â
While analyzing the relationship between siblings, researchers discovered something about having a sister helps 10- to 14-year-olds not be sad.
That’s one of several intriguing findings from a new study on the impact siblings have on one another. Brigham Young University professor Laura Padilla-Walker is the lead author on the research, which also sorts out the influence of siblings and the influence of parents within families.
“Even after you account for parents’ influence, siblings do matter in unique ways,†said Padilla-Walker, who teaches in BYU’s School of Family Life.
“They give kids something that parents don’t.â€
Padilla-Walker’s research stems from BYU’s Flourishing Families Project and will appear in the August issue of the Journal of Family Psychology.
The study included 395 families with more than one child, at least one of whom was an adolescent between 10 and 14 years old. The researchers gathered a wealth of information about each family’s dynamic, then followed up one year later.
Statistical analyses showed that having a sister protected adolescents from feeling lonely, unloved, guilty, self-conscious and fearful. It didn’t matter whether the sister was younger or older, or how far apart the siblings were agewise.
Brothers mattered, too. The study found that having a loving sibling of either gender promoted good deeds, such as helping a neighbor or watching out for other kids at school. In fact, loving siblings fostered charitable attitudes more than loving parents did.
The relationship between sibling affection and good deeds was twice as strong as that between parenting and good deeds.
Read in Full:Â http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/03/sibling-relationships-strengthen-mental-and-life-skills/16330.html
Â
 
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on August 3, 2010Â
New research suggests how positively you see others reflects how happy, kind-hearted and emotionally stable you are.
“Your perceptions of others reveal so much about your own personality,†says Dustin Wood, assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest and lead author of the study, about his findings.
By asking study participants to rate positive and negative characteristics of just three people, the researchers were able to find out important information about the rater’s well-being, mental health, social attitudes and how they were judged by others.
The study appears in the July issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Peter Harms at the University of Nebraska and Simine Vazire of Washington University in St. Louis co-authored the study.
The researchers found a person’s tendency to describe others in positive terms is an important indicator of the positivity of the person’s own personality traits. They discovered particularly strong associations between positively judging others and how enthusiastic, happy, kind-hearted, courteous, emotionally stable and capable the person describes oneself and is described by others.
“Seeing others positively reveals our own positive traits,†Wood says.
The study also found that how positively you see other people shows how satisfied you are with your own life, and how much you are liked by others.
In contrast, negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and antisocial behavior. “A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively,†Wood says. “The simple tendency to see people negatively indicates a greater likelihood of depression and various personality disorders.â€
Read in Full:Â http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/03/your-take-on-others-reflects-your-own-emotional-stability/16327.html
Â
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on August 3, 2010Â
New research suggests how positively you see others reflects how happy, kind-hearted and emotionally stable you are.
“Your perceptions of others reveal so much about your own personality,†says Dustin Wood, assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest and lead author of the study, about his findings.
By asking study participants to rate positive and negative characteristics of just three people, the researchers were able to find out important information about the rater’s well-being, mental health, social attitudes and how they were judged by others.
The study appears in the July issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Peter Harms at the University of Nebraska and Simine Vazire of Washington University in St. Louis co-authored the study.
The researchers found a person’s tendency to describe others in positive terms is an important indicator of the positivity of the person’s own personality traits. They discovered particularly strong associations between positively judging others and how enthusiastic, happy, kind-hearted, courteous, emotionally stable and capable the person describes oneself and is described by others.
“Seeing others positively reveals our own positive traits,†Wood says.
The study also found that how positively you see other people shows how satisfied you are with your own life, and how much you are liked by others.
In contrast, negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and antisocial behavior. “A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively,†Wood says. “The simple tendency to see people negatively indicates a greater likelihood of depression and various personality disorders.â€
Read in Full:Â http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/03/your-take-on-others-reflects-your-own-emotional-stability/16327.html
 
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on August 2, 2010Â
Historically, researchers have used common tools to ensure that standardized tests are unbiased. Now, a new study suggests the tools used to check tests of “general mental ability†for bias are themselves flawed.
Indiana University researchers believe this finding challenges reliance on such exams to make objective decisions for employment or academic admissions even in the face of well-documented gaps between mean scores of white and minority populations.
The study, published in the July issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, investigated an amalgam of scores representing a vast sample of commonly used tests, including civil service or other pre-employment exams and university entrance exams.
“Test bias†means that two people with different ethnicity or gender, for example, who have the same test score are predicted to have different “scores†on the outcome (e.g., job performance); thus a biased test might benefit certain groups over others.
Decades of earlier research consistently found no evidence of test bias against ethnic minorities, but the current study challenges this established belief.
Read in Full:Â http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/02/some-standardized-employment-tests-may-be-biased/16295.html