The emperor is still under-dressed

DW's Canadian data regarding fatal abuse are discussed in [5xAdapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Buller, D.J. See all References[5], but the arguments of [3xEvolutionary psychology: the emperor's new paradigm. Buller, D.J. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005; 9: 277–283Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (37)See all References[3] and [5xAdapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Buller, D.J. See all References[5] focus on American data because evidence regarding (potentially biased) underascertainment of child maltreatment fatalities derives from US records from the 1980s and 1990s. To determine whether recording bias can account for the overrepresentation of step-parents in official records, it is appropriate to examine abuse records in the same society and reporting period. So the argument compares NIS-3 data (US, 1993) with data regarding bias in the US in the same reporting period.DW say it is asserted ‘falsely and on no apparent basis’ that things like failing to secure a child with a seat belt were included as abuse; but the claim was that such things are sometimes included as maltreatment, not abuse ([3xEvolutionary psychology: the emperor's new paradigm. Buller, D.J. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005; 9: 277–283Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (37)See all References[3], p. 281). DW's study included all cases in which care was ‘so poor or unreliable as to imperil the child’ ([11xChild abuse and other risks of not living with both parents. Daly, M. and Wilson, M. Ethol. Sociobiol. 1985; 6: 197–210Scopus (155)See all References[11], p. 207), which might include unintentional omissions, but they nowhere report how many of the cases were due to omissions, rather than acts, although only the latter are appropriate to testing their hypothesis. Hence the need to focus on the US data in which ‘unintentional omissions’ could be separated from injurious acts. And the kinds of omission included among maltreatment are detailed in the reporting form for NIS-3 and the standard definition of child maltreatment endorsed by the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [12xStandard definitions for childhood injury research: Excerpts of a conference report. Christoffel, K.K. et al. Pediatrics. 1992; 89: 1027–1034PubMedSee all References[12], as explained in [13xUnderascertainment of child maltreatment fatalities by death certificates, 1990-1998. Crume, T.L. et al. Pediatrics. 2002; 110: e18Crossref | PubMedSee all References[13] and [5xAdapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Buller, D.J. See all References[5] (p. 374).DW [14xThe ‘Cinderella effect’ is no fairy tale. Daly, M. and Wilson, M. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005; Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (16)See all References[14] make several mistaken claims regarding the Colorado study [13xUnderascertainment of child maltreatment fatalities by death certificates, 1990-1998. Crume, T.L. et al. Pediatrics. 2002; 110: e18Crossref | PubMedSee all References[13], of which one of us was lead author. First, the perpetrators of the cases added after death review were not ‘by definition’ the genetic parents; they were any adult in a caretaker role at the time of the fatal event (a genetic parent, step-parent, other relative, or a care provider). Second, DW suggest the actual increased likelihood of ascertainment for ‘other unrelated persons including live-in boyfriends’ is 2-fold, rather than the 8.71 increased likelihood reported in [13xUnderascertainment of child maltreatment fatalities by death certificates, 1990-1998. Crume, T.L. et al. Pediatrics. 2002; 110: e18Crossref | PubMedSee all References[13]. However, the twofold difference represents a relative risk and is an inappropriate measure given the retrospective design of this study. A relative risk is reported for a prospective study of non-exposed and exposed groups; this study retrospectively measures the association of exposure (perpetrator) and outcome (ascertainment by the death certificate). So the odds ratio of 8.71 is the accurate measure of increased likelihood of ascertainment. Third, therefore, this study does show a systematic recording bias of child maltreatment fatalities by death certificates that ‘favors’ genetic parents by significantly underrepresenting deaths at their hands.Therefore, the magnitude of the discovered reporting biases in official records of fatal maltreatment is sufficient to account for the degree of overrepresentation of step-parents in non-fatal abuse data from the same society and reporting period ([5xAdapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Buller, D.J. See all References[5], p. 379), even though DW argue that bias effects should be lower in fatality data than non-fatal-abuse data. The evidence of bias suggests that there may be no real ‘Cinderella effect’ in the US data. The argument was not that bias in US data accounts for overrepresentation in Canadian or other data, but that overrepresentation in those data may be found to be an artifact of recording bias if empirical research into bias, such as that of the Colorado study, were conducted. DW have offered only a priori arguments against the confounding effects of a recording bias, but the Colorado study shows that we can draw no conclusions (of the sort DW favor) until the empirical research is done.Finally, as [5xAdapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Buller, D.J. See all References[5] makes clear and explicit, and as those who've actually read it know (see, e.g. [15xWe're not Fred or Wilma. Bolhuis, J.J. Science. 2005; 309: 706CrossrefSee all References[15]), the intent is not to ‘stop’ evolutionary psychology (in the broad sense), but to encourage higher standards of argument and evidence in it. Moreover, it is not argued that step-parents abuse children less than records show, but that evidence indicates that genetic parents abuse them more than records show. If investigative agencies became aware of research into bias, it could serve to help children who are now being lost to the system. In that case, insisting that we already ‘know’ everything about child abuse is what would ‘do real harm in the practical realm of child protection’.