Diagnose Autism Simply with ‘ipad’ Games

...

On the other hand, technical and scientific contents are omitted in the news stories. The original scientific report discussed the study methods and results in detail including the algorithm charts, boxplots, data acquisitions, machine learning approaches, experimental limitations, etc., while both news stories omitted these complicated information which the general public do not understand or concern about.

- Reporting Inaccuracy

Both news stories are inaccurate in depicting the achievement of the study by using the word “diagnose” instead of “identify” in the scientific report. The word “identify” in the report usually refers to a screening test which detects potential autism indicators with the simple, acceptable method to the asymptomatic yet potentially at risk children, while the word “diagnose” in the news stories refers to establishing the presence of autism with an invasive clinical identification to the symptomatic individuals [7]. Indeed, the researchers acknowledged that serving as the first proof-of-concept, this study employed participants already diagnosed with autism and future studies are needed for further differentiation of children with autism from those with autism-alike symptoms. Using the word “diagnose” in both news stories might be exaggerating the study results for ‘clicks’ while misrepresenting the science to generate false hope [8] to the public. The aforementioned expert opinion included in BBC from Brown, which questioned the possibility of developing the single diagnostic test for the complex autism condition, might therefore misguide the public and reduce the credibility of the scientific study.

Inaccuracies are also identified in the details of the news story in Mail, such as wrongly stated “33 children with autism” instead of 37 and created the age range of the 45 children without autism as “four through seven” (indeed the Mail journalist might have probably misread their mean age of 4 years 7 months as the age range). These inaccuracies in the news reporting despite minor may somehow distort the original science or even lead to a devastating effect [9].

- Clear Tone

Both news stories are written with clear and appropriate tones using simple daily life wordings without jargons. For instance, the scientific term “motor patterns”, which refers to a co-ordinated set of movements involving both voluntary and reflex actions [10], is replaced by a simple term “movements” in both news stories. At the same time, BBC omitted the term “inertial” in describing the embedded movement sensors.

Originality from the first authors is also shown in both news stories with the direct quotes from the researchers in explaining the study. While Mail directly quoting dialogues from the report in Nature in a relatively messy way, BBC inserted the quotes and dialogues from the first authors accordingly to the news content in an organized way.

Conclusion

Scientists and journalists are always having conflicts over reporting a scientific study due to their different reporting purposes and different target audiences. In order to attract the public attention and emphasize on the importance of the study to the general society, the media outlets deviated from the original scientific study to a certain extent in their news stories with a lopsided emphasis and inaccurate in reporting, written from the public perspective with a clear tone in language. It is understandable that journalists always putting their public readers in the first place to cater their interests in the news stories for more ‘clicks’. Nevertheless, science reporting in media could be improved by including or at least mentioning the study’s significance in the scientific development aspect in the news stories for a brief public understanding, as what BBC had done in this news story. Hopefully a comprehensive science news story could be scientifically accurate with high news value to benefit both the scientific community and the general society. (1494 words, excluding references)

References

[1] Anzulewicz, A., Sobota, K., & Delafield-Butt, J. T. (2016). Toward the Autism Motor Signature: Gesture patterns during smart tablet gameplay identify children with autism. Scientific Reports, 6.

[2] Tablet and phone games could help diagnose autism, study suggests. (2016, August 30). BBC. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37213165

[3] Liberatore, S. (2016, August 31). The 'breakthrough' iPad game that can spot autism in children with 93% accuracy. Mail Online. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3766033/The-breakthrough-iPad-game-spot-autism-children-93-accuracy.html

[4] Caple, H., & Bednarek, M. (2013). Delving into the discourse: Approaches to news values in journalism studies and beyond. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, The University of Oxford, Oxford.

[5] Ecker, U. K., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P., & Pillai, R. (2014). The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. Journal of experimental psychology: applied, 20(4), 323.

[6] Ethics, Balance & Objectivity. (2013, September 8). Canadian University Press. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.cup.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/08-Ethics-Balance-Objectivity.pdf

[7] Ruf, M., & Morgan, O. (2010). Differences between Screening and - Diagnostic Tests, Case Finding. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/disease-causation-diagnostic/2c-diagnosis-screening/screening-diagnostic-case-finding

[8] Ransohoff, D. F., & Ransohoff, R. M. (2001). Sensationalism in the media: when scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators.

[9] Fox, F. (2011, December 9). A few simple checks would transform science reporting. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21268-a-few-simple-checks-would-transform-science-reporting/

[10]