The actual paper referred to in the USA Today article described in the previous exercise was “Children’s Television Exposure and Behavioral and Social Outcomes at 5.5 years: Does Timing of Exposure Matter?” (Pediatrics [2007]: 762–769). The paper describes the sample as follows: 

The study sample included 2707 children whose mothers completed telephone interviews at both 30 to 33 months and 5.5 years and reported television exposure at both time points. Of those completing both interviewers, 41 children (1%) were excluded because of missing data on television exposure at one or both time points. Compared with those enrolled in the HS clinical trial, parents in the study sample were disproportionately older, white, more educated, and married. 

a. The “HS clinical trial” referred to in the excerpt from the paper was a nationally representative sample used in the Healthy Steps for Young Children national evaluation. Based on the above description of the study sample, do you think that it is reasonable to regard the sample as representative of parents of all children at age 5.5 years? Explain. 

b. The USA Today article also includes the following summary paragraph: The study did not examine what the children watched and can’t show TV was the cause of later problems, but it does “tell parents that even if kids are watching TV early in life, and they stop, it could reduce the risk for behavioral and social problems later,” Mistry says. What potentially confounding variable is identified in this passage? 

c. The passage in Part (b) says that the study cannot show that TV was the cause of later problems. Is the quote from Kamila Mistry (one of the study authors) in the passage consistent with the statement about the cause? Explain.