4.5 Article

Heritability of attention problems in children: longitudinal results from a study of twins, age 3 to 12

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 577-588

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00247.x

关键词

overactivity; attention problems; heritability; twin study; repeated measures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Twin studies of childhood behavior problems support the conclusion that individual differences in impulsivity, hyperactivity, and inattention are largely due to genetic influences. Nongenetic variation is due to environmental influences that are unique to the individual, and possibly to rater contrast effects. In the present longitudinal twin study, we report on the size of genetic and environmental effects on individual differences in attention problems at ages 3, 7, 10 and 12 years. Methods: Mothers were asked to complete the CBCL for their twin offspring when the children were 3 (n = 11,938), 7 (n = 10,657), 10 (n = 6,192), and 12 years old (n = 3,124). We focus on the Overactivity (OA) scale in the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/2-3), and on the Attention Problem (AP) scale of the CBCL/4-18. The data were analyzed using longitudinal structural equation modeling. Results: Broad heritability of CA and AP is estimated at nearly 75%, at each age. A contrast effect was observed at age 3 only. The results revealed less stability of OA at age 3 to AP at age 7 (r = .40), compared to the stability from AP at age 7 and beyond (r =.70). Genetic effects explained between 76% and 92% of the covariance between CA and AP. Conclusions: OA and AP are highly heritable at all ages in both genders. The same set of genes appears to be expressed in boys and girls. The size of genetic and environmental contributions remains the same across the ages studied. Stability in OA and AP is accounted for by genetic influences. Children who do not display OA or AP at a given age are unlikely to develop these problems at a subsequent age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据