Critique of Results, "Study: Kids' Gaming Is 'Strongly' Associated with Attention Problems"

This study did not show a "Strong" relationship between media exposure and attention difficulties. The relationship between gaming and attention problems in this study had a Pearson's correlation coefficient of r=.22 at initial testing and r=.10 after 13 months elapsed. A strong relationship is a relationship where r is greater than .5, up to a maximum relationship of 1.0. In fact, if the authors of the article are being honest, they can't even call .22 or .1 a medium strength connection- .1 to .3 is a small or weak relationship.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

The relationship between gameplay and attention problems shrinks over time, going
from r=.22 at the first point of measure to r=.10 after 13 months. This is directly in contradiction to the claims made in the study: "Nonetheless, because of this cumulative later-life effect, the study recommended that parents limit their kids' TV and game time to under two hours a day for the best chance of effective and healthy habits in early adulthood."

I scoured the study, and I can't find anywhere that the author supports the claim of "those who play games more than two hours a day are 67 percent more likely to have
attention problems such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in home and in the classroom." You would think a claim that central to the author's point would be prominently displayed in the article, but I surely can't find it. Also, more likely than whom? Those who play no videogames? Those who only play one hour? Those who are below two hours a day?

This article comes out of Iowa State University; they have a history of releasing articles that make grandiose claims with small statistical backing, but get massive media circulation due to their inflammatory "video games are unhealthy" positions.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Anderson, section "Controversies"