Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of the developmental tests Bayley-III and Bayley-II in 7-month-old infants born preterm.

The study aims on comparing Bayley Scales of infant development third (Bayley-III) and Bayley second (Bayley-II) edition with special focus on patterns in the first year of life. Fifty-five premature infants (43 with low birth weight/LBW >1,499 g and 12 with very/extremely low birth weight/VLBW/ELBW <1,500 g) aged 7 months (corrected for prematurity) were assessed with the complete Bayley-III. From this assessment, Bayley-II results were retrospectively estimated. Bayley-III results were compared to the expected mean with one-sample t-tests. The mean scores of both editions were compared with the aid of paired-sample t-tests. Pearson correlations between subscales and editions were analysed. The Bayley-III cognitive score of the study group was significantly higher than the expected mean of the standardization sample. VLBW/ELBW had significantly lower motor scores than LBW in both editions. When compared to estimated Bayley-II scores, all relevant Bayley-III scores were significantly higher (all p < .01) with highest difference (ten points) between the motor scales of both editions. There were significant correlations not only between Bayley-III cognitive and language scales but also between language and motor scales. Given the strong association between motor and cognitive behaviour in early infancy, this age-specific pattern is heightening the risk of failure to identify infants at risk for both cognitive and motor delay. Therefore, assessment of infants should comprise all subscales. Since Bayley-III probably overestimates especially motor performance in young infants, when interpreting Bayley-III scores in this age, comparison groups are highly recommended until further validation of normative data are outstanding.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app