The purpose was to find out what proportion of the children had Deficits in Attention, Motor control and Perception (DAMP), formerly known as Minimal Brain Disorder (MBD), and to follow the development of that group over the years.
Initially, preschool teachers in all areas of Gothenburg were asked to answer a questionnaire with a series of yes and no questions to identify children that possibly had MBD.
In the Gothenburg study, a questionnaire for preschool teachers was used from which children with some potential psychiatric problems were classified into either a high-index or a low-index group.
[2] Leif Elinder, a Swedish pediatrician and Eva Kärfve, a sociologist at the University of Lund, had for a number of years written numerous articles and a book where they rejected most of neuropsychiatry, and specifically most research carried out by the Gillberg group.
[3] In her book she asserted that the diagnostic criteria for DAMP was vague, as well as highlighted that the quality in the statistical data was poor.
Gillsbergs study was also characterized by arbitrary selection processes, questionable operationalization as well as methods of measurement and a high drop out rate, etc.
[5] Eva Kärfve and Leif Elinder wrote letters to Gothenburg University where they accused Gillberg and Rasmussen of scientific misconduct.
[9] Kammarrätten (an administrative court in Sweden) decided 2003-02-06 that Elinder and Kärfve would be allowed access under the conditions in Swedish secrecy laws.
[14][15] In 2005, Per-Anders Rydelius, Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Karolinska Institute, and Rolf Zetterstrom, past chief editor of Acta Paediatrica, have been critical of some research based on the Gothenburg study.
In the Swedish trade journal Dagens Medicin[16] they argued that the Gillberg group, in order to prove their hypothesis, repeatedly changed diagnoses and information in their material: "Accessible articles (from the Gillberg group) reveal that those studied have been managed in an unscientific way - a conclusion which does not need strengthening by what could have been found in the destroyed research material".