Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

How Does the Inclusion of Twins Conceived via Fertility Treatments Influence the Results of Twin Studies?

  • S. Alexandra Burt (a1) and Kelly L. Klump (a1)

Abstract

Rates of twinning have risen dramatically over the last 30 years, from 1 in 53 births in 1980 to 1 in 30 births in 2009 (Martin et al. (January 2012). Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980–2009. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics). This increase is largely attributable to increases in the use of fertility treatments (i.e., ovulation induction and in vitro fertilization) combined with delays in parenthood. Although this increase means that more twins are available for recruitment into twin studies, it also has potential consequences for the heritability estimates obtained in these studies. This study sought to evaluate this possibility, making use of the ongoing Michigan Twins Project (N = 7,261 families with twins aged 3–17 years), an arm of the Michigan State University Twin Registry. Results revealed that, on average, twins conceived via fertility treatments had lower rates of behavior problems than those conceived naturally, although these behavioral differences could be explained largely by demographic and socio-economic differences across the two types of twin families. Twin similarity did not meaningfully differ across fertility treatment status. We thus conclude that estimates of genetic and environmental influences obtained from twin studies over the last 10–15 years are more or less unaffected by the inclusion of twins conceived via fertility treatments in their samples.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      How Does the Inclusion of Twins Conceived via Fertility Treatments Influence the Results of Twin Studies?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      How Does the Inclusion of Twins Conceived via Fertility Treatments Influence the Results of Twin Studies?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      How Does the Inclusion of Twins Conceived via Fertility Treatments Influence the Results of Twin Studies?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

address for correspondence: Alex Burt, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 107D Psychology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail burts@msu.edu

References

Hide All
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317332.
Baker, L. A., Barton, M., & Raine, A. (2002). The Southern California Twin Register at the University of Southern California. Twin Research, 5, 456459.
Burt, S. A. (2009). Rethinking environmental contributions to child and adolescent psychopathology: A meta-analysis of shared environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 608637.
Davies, M. J., Moore, V. M., Wilson, K. J., Van Essen, P., Priest, K., Scott, H., Haan, E. A., & Chan, A. (2012). Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. New England Journal of Medicine, 366, 18031813.
Golombok, S., & MacCallum, F. (2003). Practitioner review: Outcomes for parents and children following non-traditional conception: What do clinicians need to know? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 303315.
Goodman, R., & Scott, S. (1999). Comparing the strengths and difficulties questionnaire and the child behavior checklist: Is small beautiful? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 1724.
Goody, A., Rice, F., Boivin, J., Harold, G. T., Hay, D. F., & Thapar, A. (2005). Twins born following fertility treatment: Implications for quantitative genetic studies. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 8, 337345.
Hall, J. G. (2003). Twinning. The Lancet, 362, 735743.
Hay, D. A., McStephen, M., Levy, F., & Pearsall-Jones, J. (2002). Recruitment and attrition in twin register studies of childhood behavior: The example of the Australian Twin ADHD Project. Twin Research, 5, 324328.
Klump, K. L., & Burt, S. A. (2006). The Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR): Genetic, environmental, and neurobiological influences on behavior across development. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9, 971977.
Lambalk, C. B. & van Hooff, M. (2001). Natural versus induced twinning and pregnancy outcome: A Dutch nationwide survey of primiparous dizygotic twin deliveries. Fertility & Sterility, 75, 731736.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309337.
Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., & Osterman, M. J. K. (January 2012). Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980–2009. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
Neale, M. C., Boker, S. M., Xie, G., & Maes, H. H. (2003). MX: Statistical modeling (6th ed.). Richmond, VA: Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Peeters, H., Van Gestel, S., Vlietinck, R., Derom, C., & Derom, R. (1998). Validation of a telephone zygosity questionnaire in twins of known zygosity. Behavior Genetics, 28, 159161.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111163.
Sclove, L. S. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 333343.
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van Der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 64, 583639.
Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Correcting estimates of shared environmental variance for range restriction in adoption studies using a truncated multivariate normal model. Behavior Genetics, 28, 429441.
Tully, L. A., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2003). Maternal adjustment, parenting and child behavior in families of school-aged twins conceived after IVF and ovulation induction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 316325.
van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., Bartels, M., & Boomsma, D. I. (2011). Comparison of naturally conceived and IVF-DZ twins in the Netherlands twin registry: A developmental study. Journal of Pregnancy, Article ID 517614 (1–9). doi:10.1155/2011/517614.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Twin Research and Human Genetics
  • ISSN: 1832-4274
  • EISSN: 1839-2628
  • URL: /core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed