Learning, Cognitive, and Attentional Problems in Adolescents Born Small for Gestational Age
* Department of Developmental Paediatrics, Mater Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Child Development and Rehabilitation Services, Mater Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
|| Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
¶ Child and Youth Mental Health Service, Mater Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Objective. To determine whether the presence, severity, or symmetry of growth restriction in term infants is an independent risk factor for learning, cognitive, and attentional problems in adolescence.
Methods. A total of 7388 term infants have been followed prospectively since birth. At 14 years, 5059 mothers completed a Child Behavior Checklist and provided information on their child’s school progress. A total of 5051 adolescents completed a Youth Self Report, with 3703 also undergoing psychometric testing with Ravens Progressive Matrices and Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) reading subtest. Outcomes were compared on the basis of birth weight groups and measures of body symmetry and were adjusted for the level of social risk at birth.
Results. Adolescents who were born small for gestational age (SGA), when compared with their appropriately grown counterparts (>10th percentile), were more likely to experience learning difficulties, with a higher prevalence in those of birth weight 
3rd percentile. Girls of birth weight 3rd percentile were more likely to have attentional problems and low WRAT reading scores. There was no significant difference in Ravens IQ or mean WRAT reading scores between SGA and non-SGA groups. There was no association between body symmetry and any of the outcomes studied.
Conclusions. SGA status seems to have only modest independent effects on learning, cognition, and attention in adolescence. Severity but not symmetry of growth restriction predicted learning difficulties.
Key Words: learning difficulties • cognition • attention • small for gestational age • symmetry
Abbreviations: SGA, small for gestational age • PI, Ponderal Index • BHR, birth weight-to-head circumference ratio • WRAT, Wide Range Achievement Test • SD, standard deviation • CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist • YSR, Youth Self Report • CI, confidence interval • WISC, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
There is substantial evidence that small-for-gestational age (SGA) term infants are at increased risk for later mild cognitive deficits and behavioral problems, particularly difficulties with attention control.1–7 Not all studies, however, demonstrate this association,8–10 which may reflect the differing definitions of SGA, heterogeneous cause, and the difficulty controlling for confounding by psychosocial factors.11,12
A limited number of studies have followed SGA term infants into adolescence.13 In their Working Group report, Goldenberg et al13 concluded that most show a small but statistically significant effect of SGA status on intellectual ability (IQ) and school achievement, together with a mild increase in attentional problems and hyperactivity. They also formed the opinion that the degree of growth retardation was related to more adverse outcomes. Pryor et al1 suggested that the combination of reduced cognitive ability, problematic behavior, and short stature could potentially lead to adverse psychosocial sequelae in adolescence for SGA children. Several other studies,2,14–16 using differing definitions of SGA status, reported trends for subtle cognitive and learning difficulties in adolescence. Few studies have addressed gender differences in learning and behavioral outcomes.
Previous authors have suggested that differences in body proportionality ("symmetry") of SGA infants may reflect differences in the timing and cause of growth restriction.17–19 It has been proposed that symmetric growth restriction (whereby weight, length, and head growth all are reduced) suggests a process occurring in early to mid-pregnancy, whereas asymmetric growth restriction (with relative "head sparing") takes place in later pregnancy.19 According to this theory, brain growth is more likely to be affected by an early pregnancy process, and therefore children with symmetric growth restriction would be expected to have a higher incidence of subsequent cognitive problems and learning difficulties. Other authors have cast doubt on the concept of "brain sparing,"19 and it remains uncertain whether differences in the body proportionality of SGA infants are predictive of these adverse outcomes.20
Prevalence of growth restriction is also related to social disadvantage.21–23 As low socioeconomic status is also associated with learning and behavioral difficulties,24,25 the extent to which adverse developmental outcomes of intrauterine growth restriction are mediated by social adversity is uncertain. Evidence of a significant risk for specific subgroups of SGA children would lend support to recommendations for targeted early intervention and for increased surveillance for learning and behavioral problems in these children.14
In this study, we examined whether the presence or severity of growth restriction at full term was an independent risk factor for subsequent cognitive impairment, learning problems, or attentional deficits in male and female adolescents. In addition, we aimed to determine whether these adverse outcomes were predicted by measures of body proportionality ("symmetry") in those who were born SGA and to what degree any independent effect of SGA status was determined by social disadvantage at birth.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Subjects
Details of recruitment procedure for this cohort have been published previously.26 Between 1981 and 1984, 8556 women who attended their first public antenatal session at the Mater Mothers’ Hospital in Brisbane, Australia, were invited to participate in the Mater-University Study of Pregnancy. Because of resource constraints, data collection was reduced to all women who presented on alternate weeks for a period of several months. Despite this, the 8556 women represent the majority of public patients who presented during the 4-year period. Of those invited to participate, 98 (1%) declined. A total of 673 women did not continue with the study as they delivered at other hospitals, had miscarriages, or had a multiple pregnancy. Of the subsequent 7785 singleton deliveries at the Mater Mothers’ Hospital, there were 7388 term (
37 weeks’ gestation) deliveries, with 97% of infants being of white background. Reasons for the 397 exclusions include prematurity, perinatal deaths, and adoptions. This birth cohort has been followed prospectively at 6 months and 5 years, with the most recent follow-up at 14 years of age (mean age for boys: 13.9 years [range: 12.5–15.5]; mean age for girls: 13.9 years [range: 12.1–15.4]). At the 14-year assessment, families were contacted, and 5059 mothers and 5051 adolescents (2589 boys, 2462 girls) completed questionnaires, with 3703 adolescents (1905 boys, 1798 girls) also agreeing to psychometric assessments. A comparison of birth cohort members who had behavioral assessments at 14 years with those who did not is presented in Table 1. Using similar comparisons to those in Table 1, the characteristics of the adolescents who completed behavioral questionnaires only were almost identical to those who also underwent psychometric assessment. SGA status itself; intensive care nursery admission; and having a mother who was younger, less well-educated, unmarried, or poorer all predicted loss to follow-up.
|
SGA Status and Classification
Subjects who were born at
37 weeks were subdivided into 3 groups on the basis of birth weight—3rd percentile, >3rd to 10th percentile, and >10th percentile—using Australian norms for male and female infants.27 Two measures of body proportionality (symmetry) were examined for each SGA child 10th percentile birth weight: Ponderal Index (PI) and a birth weight-to-head circumference ratio (BHR). The PI was calculated using the following formula: PI = birth weight (g) x 100/length (cm)3. The BHR was calculated as follows: BHR = birth weight (g)/head circumference (cm). Separate analyses were performed for both measures, with subjects divided into quartile groups. At birth, both head circumference and length were recorded from the medical chart as the midpoint value for each 1-cm interval. For example, head circumference values between 34.0 cm and 34.9 cm were recorded as 34.5 cm.
Outcomes
Learning Difficulty
Two measures of learning difficulty were defined. First, at the 14-year assessment, mothers completed a detailed questionnaire, which included items on their child’s school performance. These school-related questions were as follows: 1) parental impression of current school performance (graded as below average, a bit below average, average, a bit above average, or above average), 2) has the child ever repeated a school year (yes/no)? and 3) has the child ever been enrolled in a special education class (yes/no)? Learning difficulty was defined by a child’s repeating a school year, being enrolled in a special education class, or mother believing that his or her school performance was "below average." Second, those who attended for a physical assessment completed the Reading Scale of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). The WRAT 328 is an academic achievement test that has been shown to have good correlation with the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.29 It consists of 3 subtests: reading, spelling, and arithmetic. In this study, only the reading subtest was used. A score on the WRAT reading test of <1 standard deviation (SD) below the mean (ie, <85) defined a second measure of learning difficulty. Mean WRAT reading scores were also examined.
Cognitive Abilities
Adolescents who attended for a physical assessment also completed the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices test.30 The Ravens is a test of nonverbal intelligence with established validity and reliability.31 The test was restandardized for Australian norms in 1986.32 It is based on perceptual analogies presented in the form of 2-dimensional pattern-matching matrices in which 1 small section is missing. Children are asked to choose from 6 options the 1 that best fits the missing section. The items become progressively more difficult. A measure of nonverbal IQ is obtained (mean: 100; SD: 15). In this study, the Timed Group Administration was used.
Attention
Mothers completed a Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)33 at the adolescent assessment. Results in this study are limited to the attentional problems subscale of the CBCL, which has been shown to have a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 99% for the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.34 At the 14-year assessment, adolescents completed a Youth Self Report (YSR) questionnaire35. The YSR is a standardized self-report questionnaire for adolescents, designed to assess the same behavioral subscales as the CBCL. Children who scored in the top 10% of the attentional problems subscale on the CBCL or YSR were categorized as having attentional difficulties.
Social Variables
Maternal age, level of education, income, and marital status were measured by maternal questionnaire at the first antenatal visit. The extent to which the association of learning difficulties with SGA status was independent of potential confounding by these social factors was examined by stratifying the study group according to social risk. A Social Risk Score similar to that used by Schmidt and Wedig36 was calculated, using social risk factors present at the time of the child’s birth. Subjects were allocated 1 point for each of the following risk factors: average family income <$10 400, maternal education less than year 10, maternal age <20 years, and single parent status, with the total making up the Social Risk Score (range: 0–4 points). Subjects were then stratified into low social risk (0 points), intermediate social risk (1–2 points), or high social risk (3–4 points).
Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed using SPSS/PC+.37 For continuous, normally distributed variables, the analysis of variance was used. The 
2 test was used for categorical data. For the stratification analysis, we defined SGA status as 10th percentile so as to include sufficient numbers of children in each category to provide stable estimates. Two-tailed P values of <.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Learning Difficulties
The relationship between SGA status and subsequent learning difficulties for the total group and separately for boys and girls is shown in Table 2. For SGA children of both genders, learning difficulties occurred significantly more often than in non-SGA children, with those born
3rd percentile being more severely affected than children of birthweight >3rd to 10th percentiles. Male infants who were born SGA experienced a higher overall prevalence of learning difficulties than female infants who were born SGA, although the relative risk of learning difficulties for SGA children, when compared with those of birth weight >10th percentile, was similar for boys and girls. Female children born 3rd percentile were significantly more likely to have a WRAT score <85, whereas there was minimal difference between the >3rd to 10th and >10th percentile groups. A similar trend was noted for boys, although differences were not significant.
|
Mean WRAT reading scores were also examined according to SGA status at birth. SGA infants had lower mean scores than non-SGA infants, with values of 97.4 (
3rd percentile), 98.8 (>3rd–10th), and 100.2 (>10th). The difference in mean scores among these birth weight groups was statistically significant for girls only, where the deficit of –3.4 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: –6.5 to –0.2) for girls 3rd percentile compared with non-SGA female infants was small and of limited clinical significance. Seventy percent of those reported to have learning difficulties also scored <85 on the WRAT reading scale (P < .001). The mean WRAT reading score for those with learning difficulties (87.8) was significantly less than those with no reported problems (103.1; P < .001). The incidence of learning difficulties in those who had psychometric testing (19.8%) was almost equal to the incidence in those who completed behavioral questionnaires only (20.5%).
Cognitive Abilities
Differences in Ravens IQ scores between SGA and non-SGA groups were also of small magnitude and did not reach statistical significance for either male or female children. Mean scores on Ravens IQ test for the whole study group were 97.2 (3rd percentile), 99.9 (>3rd–10th), and 100.2 (>10th).
Attention
The percentage of male and female children, according to SGA classification, who experienced attentional difficulties as reported on the parent-completed CBCL or adolescent-reported YSR is shown in Table 2. For male children, no differences were statistically significant for either CBCL or YSR. For girls, attentional problems were reported more frequently (on the YSR) by adolescent girls who were born 3rd percentile. These differences remained significant when children with and without learning difficulties were analyzed separately. No differences in prevalence of attentional problems in girls were noted on the parent-completed CBCL. A total of 433 subjects were thought by their parents to have attentional problems, whereas 444 adolescents reported their own difficulties with attention control. Of these, only 121 adolescents were common to both groups. This low level of correspondence between the CBCL and YSR attentional problem subscales is consistent with previous reports.38,39
Symmetry
The extent to which learning difficulties, cognitive abilities, and attentional problems were related to proportionality ("symmetry") of growth restriction is shown in Table 3. Although the effect of SGA status in this study was most marked in those who were born 3rd percentile, it was necessary to examine children who were born 10th percentile in this analysis to have sufficient numbers for valid statistical estimates. Children who were born 10th percentile were subdivided into quartile groups on the basis of 1) PI and 2) BHR. For both of these measures, the proportion of children with learning difficulties and attentional problems was similar across all quartile groups, and no differences in Ravens IQ were demonstrated between the groups. For those who were born 10th percentile, the mean PI was 2.29 (SD: 0.3) and the mean BHR was 81.6 (SD: 6.8).
|
Social Confounding
The extent to which the relationship among learning difficulties, attentional problems, and SGA status was independent of confounding by social disadvantage at birth was examined (Table 4). The unadjusted relative risk for learning difficulties in those who were born
10th percentile was 1.5 (95% CI: 1.3–1.8). Subjects were stratified according to their Social Risk Score into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. The relative risk of learning difficulties associated with SGA status (10th percentile) compared with the reference category (those born >10th percentile) was similar within each stratum, indicating minimal evidence of effect measure modification. The unadjusted relative risk of 1.5 was similar to the stratum-specific estimates. Using a logistic regression model, with risk of learning difficulty as the dependent variable and SGA status 10th percentile and social risk category (included as 2 dummy variables with low risk as the reference category) as predictor variables, the adjusted odds ratio for SGA status 10th percentile and learning difficulty was 1.7 (95% CI: 1.4–2.1). This compares to an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI" 1.4–2.1). When interaction terms between the 2 social risk variables and SGA status 10th percentile were included in the model, these were not statistically significant. The effect of SGA status on attentional problems and low WRAT scores in this study was most marked in those who were born 3rd percentile, and small numbers precluded stratification for these outcomes.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
This study has demonstrated only modest differences in measures of learning difficulty and attention control problems between SGA and non-SGA children in adolescence. Children of both genders who were born SGA were significantly more likely to experience learning difficulties, an effect that was not significantly confounded by level of social risk at birth. Female, full-term infants of
3rd percentile for birth weight were more likely at 14 years to score below 85 on WRAT reading assessment and report attentional difficulties on YSR than their counterparts of appropriate birth weight (>10th percentile). There was no significant deficit on Ravens IQ score in adolescents who were born SGA. Measures of symmetry of growth restriction did not predict any of the above outcomes.
Previous studies of cognitive outcomes of growth-restricted, term infants have varied in definitions of SGA, age at assessment, and outcome measures used. Studies by Hawdon et al10 and Martyn et al40 failed to demonstrate any significant deficit in cognitive abilities for those who were born SGA. Several investigators have, however, demonstrated a trend for SGA children toward lower scores on cognitive indices in adolescence. Pryor et al1 examined full-term infants who were born <10th percentile and found that at 13 to 15 years, these children had Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) IQ scores 8 points lower on average than those of birth weight >10th percentile. In 2 studies, Paz et al14,41 examined 17-year-old recruits to the Israeli army, using 3rd percentile of their study cohort as their SGA category. Once again, there was a statistically significant trend to lower IQ scores for the SGA group, although deficits were <5 IQ points, with scores still well within the normal range. Westwood et al2 matched SGA cases (<2 SDs below hospital mean) from a previous cohort with controls of appropriate birth weight. On WISC and WRAT assessment at 16 years, there was a trend to lower scores in the SGA group, which did not reach statistical significance. Our results support the view that the risk of impaired cognitive abilities attributable to SGA status alone is mild and not clinically significant.
Our finding of an increased prevalence of learning difficulties in SGA children supports the work of several previous authors. Low et al42 used the 10th percentile as their cutoff and studied their subjects at 9 to 11 years with measures including the WRAT and Woodcock Reading test. The term SGA subjects had twice the risk of learning deficits, defined as <2 SDs below expected achievement for age. In the latest report on a large-scale prospective cohort study by Strauss,15 the SGA (5th percentile) children were assessed at 16 years and were equivalent to peers in standardized tests of vocabulary and spelling but on teacher assessment of math and overall academic performance were significantly more likely to be rated in the lower 15% of the class. Zubrick et al16 found SGA children more likely to be rated as academically impaired. Hill et al43 found a significantly increased need for special education in children who were defined as growth restricted.
Pryor et al,1 Hawdon et al,10 Walther,20 and Lagerstrom et al44 demonstrated small but significant differences between SGA children and normal control subjects in attentional problems,1,10 poor concentration,20,44 and hyperactivity/distractibility.10,44 In our study, only girls who were born 3rd percentile reported a higher prevalence of attentional problems in adolescence.
In few of the studies examining cognitive and behavioral outcomes of SGA children has consideration been given to an effect of the child’s gender. Pryor et al1 showed a larger deficit in IQ (10.3 points vs 4.9 points) and reading ability at 13 years for SGA girls compared with SGA boys. Paz et al14 found that the adjusted mean IQ was several points lower in SGA girls than in SGA boys. Lagerstrom et al44,45 found that only girls who were born SGA were at greater risk of later cognitive and behavioral problems, including concentration difficulties. In our study, we also found that growth-restricted girls were at greater risk of adverse educational and behavioral outcomes in adolescence than boys, although the differences were subtle and of limited clinical significance.
Many studies looking at outcomes of growth-restricted infants have examined children of birth weight <10th percentile.1,3,7,8,42 Other studies have focused on subjects who had more severe growth retardation than this.2,9,10,14 Goldenberg et al,5,13 in their reports on neurodevelopmental outcomes of children with intrauterine growth retardation, concluded that the degree of growth deficit seems to be a major factor in determining unfavorable outcomes. Grantham-McGregor46 suggested that, in terms of the risk for poor cognitive development for growth-restricted infants, the 10th percentile may be too high as a cutoff point. With respect to learning difficulties and attentional problems in adolescence, our study suggests that it is children who are born 3rd percentile who are at highest risk, compared with less severely affected infants.
It has been well-established that body proportionality of SGA infants exists on a continuum, with "symmetric" (equivalent reductions in growth parameters) and "asymmetric" (relative sparing of head size and length) growth restriction representing the opposite ends of a spectrum rather than 2 distinct groups.6,11,23,47 Differences in body proportionality of SGA infants may reflect differences in cause and/or timing of growth restriction.17–19 There are limited data regarding outcomes of symmetric versus asymmetric growth-restricted infants.20 Villar et al6 studied a group of term infants of birth weight <10th percentile, which they divided into low PI and adequate PI subgroups. At 3 years, the low-PI growth-restricted children performed significantly better on developmental assessment than growth-restricted infants with adequate PI. Both groups scored lower than children of normal birth weight. In a small study, Walther20 found that a group of asymmetrically growth-restricted infants (birth weight <10th percentile, low PI) were more likely to have poor concentration, hyperactivity, and academic problems at 7 years than a matched group of normally grown term infants, although there was no comparison made to symmetrically growth-restricted children. Martyn et al37 found no association between reduced cognitive function in adult life and any measure of size or proportions at birth. There was no evidence in our study that measures of body proportionality in SGA infants are predictive of cognitive abilities, learning difficulties, or attention control problems in adolescence.
Low socioeconomic status is known to be associated with both SGA status11,21–23 and adverse educational and behavioral outcomes.24,25 Few studies have had detailed measures of social environment when examining the relationship between learning and behavioral outcomes and SGA status.46 This study has demonstrated a mild, independent effect of SGA status for occurrence of learning difficulties in adolescence, which is independent of the degree of social risk at birth. This is consistent with the findings of Low et al,42 Neligan et al,3 Hill et al,43and Lagerstrom et al.45 McGee et al48 examined the relationship between SGA status and behavioral problems at high and low levels of family adversity and also found that social risk did not significantly confound the relationship between SGA status and stable behavioral problems in childhood.
In any long-term study of this nature, subject attrition is a potential source of bias. In our study, 68% completed the behavioral and educational questionnaires, although 50% of the original cohort did not have the full battery of cognitive and behavioral assessments at 14 years. The comparison of subjects who did receive full assessments with those who did not, presented in Table 1, shows that both psychosocial disadvantage and intrauterine growth retardation was associated with loss to follow-up; a degree of caution therefore is required when interpreting our results. As loss occurred differentially from those at increased social risk, the likely effect on learning difficulty is to have underestimated the contribution from these strata of Table 4 to the adjusted relative risk. Given little evidence of effect measure modification across the strata, however, this is likely to have had little effect on the findings. As other authors have noted, a continuing cycle of adverse socioeconomic factors may have a far greater negative impact on developmental outcome than most of the biological risk factors.14 In adjusting for the effect of social factors, we stratified our study group using well-established markers of social disadvantage (family income, maternal age, maternal education, single parent status) that were present at birth. Level of social risk may change over time. It is likely that environmental factors that operate after birth would have an important bearing in determining educational and behavioral outcomes. These may include relationship discord, change in relationship status, coercive parent-child interaction, parental depression/anxiety, lack of environmental stimulation, and negative parental attitude toward education. Questions for children and parents relating to the impact of learning or behavioral difficulties (eg, a child’s self-esteem, peer relationships, school disciplinary problems) would have given additional insight into the importance of these results. Imprecision in the measurements for head circumference and length at birth could lead to a small effect being missed, although the effects of ranking make this less likely for more extreme categories. The association, however, between adolescent-reported attentional problems and BHR may have become significant. We acknowledge the heterogeneous cause of intrauterine growth restriction and that different causes of SGA status may have varying effects on the developing fetus and hence different outcomes. As stated by Bakketeig et al,49 additional research is still needed to identify those causes that affect learning and behavior independent of their effect on intrauterine growth.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
In this large cohort study following into adolescence children who were born at full term, in which both severity and symmetry of growth restriction have been considered, we have shown that children of both genders who were born SGA are at higher risk of learning difficulties, an effect that is independent of unfavorable social environment at birth. Occurrence of learning difficulties was predicted by severity but not symmetry of growth restriction. The girls with more severe growth restriction were also at increased risk of attentional problems. Cognitive ability was not significantly affected by SGA status.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Received for publication Apr 17, 2002; Accepted Dec 20, 2002.
Reprint requests to (M.O.) Developmental Clinic, Mater Children’s Hospital, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Queensland, 4101 Australia. E-mail: miocalla{at}mater.org.au
Dr O’Keeffe is currently at Caboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Brisbane, Queensland, 4510 Australia.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
- Pryor J, Silva PA, Brooke M. Growth, development and behaviour in adolescents born small-for-gestational-age. J Paediatr Child Health.1995; 31 :403 –407[Web of Science][Medline]
- Westwood M, Kramer MS, Munz D, Lovett JM, Watters GV. Growth and development of full-term nonasphyxiated small-for-gestational-age newborns: follow-up through adolescence.
Pediatrics.1983; 71
:376
–382
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Neligan GA, Kolvin I, Scott DM, Garside RF. Born Too Soon or Born Too Small: A Follow-up Study to Seven Years of Age. Clinics in Developmental Medicine Number 61. London, United Kingdom: Spastics International Medical Publications; 1976
- Fitzhardinge PM, Steven EM. The small-for-date infant. II. Neurological and intellectual sequelae.
Pediatrics.1972; 50
:50
–57
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Goldenberg RL, Hoffman HJ, Cliver SP. Neurodevelopmental outcome of small-for-gestational-age infants. Eur J Clin Nutr.1998; 52(suppl 1) :S54 –S58
- Villar J, Smeriglio V, Martorell R, Brown CH, Klein RE. Heterogeneous growth and mental development of intrauterine growth-retarded infants during the first 3 years of life.
Pediatrics.1984; 74
:783
–791
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Harvey D, Prince J, Bunton J, Parkinson C, Campbell S. Abilities of children who were small-for-gestational-age babies.
Pediatrics.1982; 69
:296
–300
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Parkinson CE, Scrivener R, Graves L, Bunton J, Harvey D. Behavioural differences of school-age children who were small-for-dates babies. Dev Med Child Neurol.1986; 28 :498 –505[Web of Science][Medline]
- Ounsted MK, Moar VA, Scott A. Children of deviant birthweight at the age of seven years: health, handicap, size and developmental status. Early Hum Dev.1984; 9 :323 –340[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Hawdon JM, Hey E, Kolvin I, Fundudis T. Born too small: is outcome still affected? Dev Med Child Neurol.1990; 32 :943 –953[Web of Science][Medline]
- O’Callaghan MJ, Harvey JM, Tudehope DI, Gray PH. Aetiology and classification of small for gestational age infants. J Paediatr Child Health.1997; 33 :213 –218[Web of Science][Medline]
- Kramer MS. Socioeconomic determinants of intrauterine growth retardation. Eur J Clin Nutr.1998; 52(suppl 1) :S29 –S33
- Goldenberg RL, Hack M, Grantham-McGregor SM, Schurch B. Report of the IDECG/IUNS Working Group on IUGR effects on neurological, sensory, cognitive, and behavioral function. Eur J Clin Nutr.1998; 52(suppl 1) :S100 –S101
- Hack M, Klein NK, Taylor HG. Long term developmental outcomes of low birth weight infants. Future Child.1995; 5 :176 –196[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Strauss RS. Adult functional outcome of those born small for gestational age.
JAMA.2000; 283
:625
–632
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Zubrick SR, Kurinczuk JJ, McDermott BM, McKelvey RS, Silburn SR, Davies LC. Foetal growth and subsequent mental health problems in children aged 4 to 13 years. Dev Med Child Neurol.2000; 42 :14 –20[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Warshaw JB. Intrauterine growth retardation.
Pediatr Rev.1986; 8
:107
–114
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Villar J, Belizan JM. The timing factor in the pathophysiology of the intrauterine growth retardation syndrome. Obstet Gynecol Surv.1982; 37 :499 –506[Medline]
- Crane JP, Kopta MM. Comparative newborn anthropometric data in symmetric versus asymmetric intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol.1980; 138 :518 –522[Web of Science][Medline]
- Walther FJ. Growth and development of term disproportionate small-for-gestational age infants at the age of 7 years. Early Hum Dev.1988; 18 :1 –11[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Thompson JMD, Clark PM, Robinson E, et al. Risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies: the Auckland Birthweight Collaborative Study. J Paediatr Child Health.2001; 37 :369 –375[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Kogan MD. Social causes of low birth weight. J R Soc Med.1995; 88 :611 –615[Abstract]
- Wollman HA. Intrauterine growth restriction: definition and etiology. Horm Res.1998; 49(suppl 2) :1 –6[Web of Science][Medline]
- McLoyd VC. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. Am Psychol.1998; 53 :185 –204[CrossRef][Medline]
- Hinshaw SP. Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychol Bull.1992; 111 :127 –155[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Keeping JD, Najman JM, Morrison J, Western JS, Andersen MJ, Williams GM. A prospective longitudinal study of social, psychological and obstetric factors in pregnancy: response rates and demographic characteristics of the 8556 respondents. Br J Obstet Gynaecol.1989; 96 :289 –297[Web of Science][Medline]
- Roberts CL, Lancaster PA. Australian national birthweight percentiles by gestational age. Med J Aust.1999; 170 :114 –118[Web of Science][Medline]
- Wilkinson GS. Wide Range Achievement Test, 1993 Edition. Wide Range Inc, Wilmington, DE; 1993
- Smith TD, Smith BL. Relationship between the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. Psychol Rep.1998; 83 :963 –967[Web of Science][Medline]
- Raven JC. Progressive Matrices: A Perceptual Test of Intelligence. London, United Kingdom: HK Lewis and Co; 1938
- Raven JC. The Raven’s progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cognit Psychol.2000; 41 :1 –48[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- de Lemos MM. Standard Progressive Matrices: Australian Manual. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research; 1986
- Achenbach TM. Manual for Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont; 1991
- Vaughn ML, Riccio CA, Hynd GW, Hall J. Diagnosing ADHD (predominantly inattentive and combined type subtypes): discriminant validity of the behavior assessment system for children and the Achenbach parent and teacher rating scales. J Clin Child Psychol.1997; 26 :349 –357[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Achenbach TM. Manual for the Youth Self Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont; 1991
- Schmidt RE, Wedig KE. Very low birthweight infants: educational outcome at school age from parental questionnaire. Clin Pediatr.1990; 29 :649 –651
- Paz I, Gale R, Laor A, Danon YL, Stevenson DK, Seidman DS. The cognitive outcome of full-term small for gestational age infants at late adolescence. Obstet Gynecol.1995; 85 :452 –456[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Steinhausen HC, Metzke CW. Youth self-report of behavioral and emotional problems in a Swiss epidemiological study. J Youth Adolesc.1998; 27 :429 –441[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Bird HR, Gould MS, Rubio-Stipec M, et al. Screening for childhood psychopathology in the community using the Child Behavior Checklist. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.1991; 30 :116 –123[Web of Science][Medline]
- Martyn CN, Gale CR, Sayer AA, Fall C. Growth in utero and cognitive function in adult life: follow up study of people born between 1920 and 1943.
BMJ.1996; 312
:1393
–1396
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Paz I, Laoi A, Gale R, Harlap S, Stevenson DK, Seidman DS. Term infants with fetal growth restriction are not at increased risk for low intelligence scores at age 17 years. J Pediatr.2001; 138 :87 –91[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Low JA, Handley-Derry MH, Burke SO, et al. Association of intrauterine fetal growth retardation and learning deficits at age 9 to 11 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol.1992; 167 :1499 –1505[Web of Science][Medline]
- Hill RM, Verniaud WM, Deter RL, et al. The effect of intrauterine malnutrition on the term infant. Acta Paediatr Scand.1984; 73 :482 –487[Web of Science][Medline]
- Lagerstrom M, Bremme K, Eneroth P, Magnusson D. Behavior at 10 and 13 years of age for children with low birth weight. Percept Motor Skills.1990; 71 :579 –594[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Lagerstrom M, Bremme K, Eneroth P, Janson CG. School marks and IQ-test scores for low birth weight children at the age of 13. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.1991; 40 :129 –136[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Grantham-McGregor SM. Small for gestational age, term babies, in the first six years of life. Eur J Clin Nutr.1998; 52(suppl 1) :S59 –S64
- Kramer MS, McLean FH, Olivier M, Willis DM, Usher RH. Body proportionality and head and length "sparing" in growth-retarded neonates: a critical reappraisal.
Pediatrics.1989; 84
:717
–723
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - McGee R, Silva PA, Williams S. Perinatal, neurological, environmental and developmental characteristics of seven-year-old children with stable behaviour problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.1984; 25 :573 –586[Web of Science][Medline]
- Bakketeig LS, Butte N, de Onis M, et al. Report of the IDECG Working Group on definitions, classifications, causes, mechanisms and prevention of IUGR. Eur J Clin Nutr.1998; 52(suppl 1) :94 –96[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2003 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Figueras, D. Oros, R. Cruz-Martinez, N. Padilla, E. Hernandez-Andrade, F. Botet, C. Costas-Moragas, and E. Gratacos Neurobehavior in Term, Small-for-Gestational Age Infants With Normal Placental Function Pediatrics, November 1, 2009; 124(5): e934 - e941. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Marks, H. Hix-Small, K. Clark, and J. Newman Lowering Developmental Screening Thresholds and Raising Quality Improvement for Preterm Children Pediatrics, June 1, 2009; 123(6): 1516 - 1523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N Weisglas-Kuperus, E T M Hille, H J Duivenvoorden, M J J Finken, J M Wit, S van Buuren, J B van Goudoever, S P Verloove-Vanhorick, and for the Dutch POPS-19 Collaborative Study Group Intelligence of very preterm or very low birthweight infants in young adulthood Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2009; 94(3): F196 - F200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E.-L. Funkquist, T. Tuvemo, B. Jonsson, F. Serenius, and K. H. Nyqvist Feeding Regimens and Catch-Up Growth in Premature and Full-Term Small for Gestational Age Infants ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent Nutrition, April 1, 2009; 1(2): 66 - 72. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D-M Walker and N Marlow Neurocognitive outcome following fetal growth restriction Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., July 1, 2008; 93(4): F322 - F325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Keltikangas-Jarvinen, M. Elovainio, M. Kivimaki, O. T. Raitakari, J. S.A. Viikari, and T. Lehtimaki Dopamine Receptor D2 Gene Taq1A (C32806T) Polymorphism Modifies the Relationship Between Birth Weight and Educational Attainment in Adulthood: 21-Year Follow-up of the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study Pediatrics, October 1, 2007; 120(4): 756 - 761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Leitner, A. Fattal-Valevski, R. Geva, R. Eshel, H. Toledano-Alhadef, M. Rotstein, H. Bassan, B. Radianu, O. Bitchonsky, A. J. Jaffa, et al. Neurodevelopmental Outcome of Children With Intrauterine Growth Retardation: A Longitudinal, 10-Year Prospective Study J Child Neurol, May 1, 2007; 22(5): 580 - 587. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K Lagrou, J Vanderfaeillie, C Froidecoeur, M Thomas, G Massa, S Tenoutasse, M Craen, M C Lebrethon, D Beckers, I Francois, et al. Effect of 2 years of high-dose growth hormone therapy on cognitive and psychosocial development in short children born small for gestational age Eur. J. Endocrinol., February 1, 2007; 156(2): 195 - 201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Samuelsson, O. Finnstrom, O. Flodmark, P.-O. Gaddlin, I. Leijon, and M. Wadsby A Longitudinal Study of Reading Skills Among Very-Low-Birthweight Children: Is There a Catch-up? J. Pediatr. Psychol., October 1, 2006; 31(9): 967 - 977. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. H. Casey, L. Whiteside-Mansell, K. Barrett, R. H. Bradley, and R. Gargus Impact of Prenatal and/or Postnatal Growth Problems in Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants on School-Age Outcomes: An 8-Year Longitudinal Evaluation Pediatrics, September 1, 2006; 118(3): 1078 - 1086. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Florio, E. Marinoni, R. Di Iorio, M. Bashir, S. Ciotti, R. Sacchi, M. Bruschettini, M. Lituania, G. Serra, F. Michetti, et al. Urinary S100B Protein Concentrations Are Increased in Intrauterine Growth-Retarded Newborns Pediatrics, September 1, 2006; 118(3): e747 - e754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K M Linnet, K Wisborg, E Agerbo, N J Secher, P H Thomsen, and T B Henriksen Gestational age, birth weight, and the risk of hyperkinetic disorder Arch. Dis. Child., August 1, 2006; 91(8): 655 - 660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Geva, R. Eshel, Y. Leitner, A. F. Valevski, and S. Harel Neuropsychological Outcome of Children With Intrauterine Growth Restriction: A 9-Year Prospective Study Pediatrics, July 1, 2006; 118(1): 91 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Bergvall, A. Iliadou, T. Tuvemo, and S. Cnattingius Birth Characteristics and Risk of Low Intellectual Performance in Early Adulthood: Are the Associations Confounded by Socioeconomic Factors in Adolescence or Familial Effects? Pediatrics, March 1, 2006; 117(3): 714 - 721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Bergvall, A. Iliadou, S. Johansson, T. Tuvemo, and S. Cnattingius Risks for Low Intellectual Performance Related to Being Born Small for Gestational Age Are Modified by Gestational Age Pediatrics, March 1, 2006; 117(3): e460 - e467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Najman, W Bor, M O'Callaghan, G. Williams, R Aird, and G Shuttlewood Cohort Profile: The Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy (MUSP) Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2005; 34(5): 992 - 997. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Grunau, M. F. Whitfield, and T. B. Fay Psychosocial and Academic Characteristics of Extremely Low Birth Weight (<=800 g) Adolescents Who Are Free of Major Impairment Compared With Term-Born Control Subjects Pediatrics, December 1, 2004; 114(6): e725 - e732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Brodsky and H. Christou Current Concepts in Intrauterine Growth Restriction J Intensive Care Med, November 1, 2004; 19(6): 307 - 319. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L B Johnston and M O Savage Should recombinant human growth hormone therapy be used in short small for gestational age children? Arch. Dis. Child., August 1, 2004; 89(8): 740 - 744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Does Small Birth Size Cause Big Problems in Adolescence? Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, September 8, 2003; 2003(908): 2 - 2. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
