Published online August 17, 2009
PEDIATRICS Vol. 124 No. 3 September 2009, pp. 903-910 (doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0085)
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lumeng, J. C.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lumeng, J. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Genitourinary Tract
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Short Stature in a Population-Based Cohort: Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Functioning

Joyce M. Lee, MD, MPHa, Danielle Appugliese, MPHb, Sharon M. Coleman, MS, MPHb, Niko Kaciroti, PhDc, Robert F. Corwyn, PhDd, Robert H. Bradley, PhDe, David E. Sandberg, PhDf and Julie C. Lumeng, MDc,f

a Pediatric Endocrinology, Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit
c Center for Human Growth and Development
f Child Behavioral Health, Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
b Data Coordinating Center, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
d Department of Psychology
e Family and Human Dynamics Research Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine whether there were significant differences between children of normative versus short stature in behavioral functioning and peer relationships, according to teacher and child reports.

METHODS: The study included 712 boys and girls in the sixth grade, from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Main outcome measures included Achenbach Teacher's Report Form internalizing, externalizing, and total scores; Children's Depression Inventory scores (child report); Life Orientation Test-Revised scores (child report); Child Behavior with Peers questionnaire asocial with peers, excluded by peers, and peer victimization subscale scores (teacher report); peer social support and victimization scores (child report); and relationships with peers score (teacher report). In bivariate comparisons, these outcomes were compared for children of relatively short (height of <10th percentile) versus nonshort (height of ≥10th percentile) stature, and effect sizes were calculated. Multivariate linear regression models adjusted for maternal education, income/needs ratio, race, and gender.

RESULTS: Effect sizes ranged from 0.00 to 0.35. Short children reported marginally higher levels of self-perceived peer victimization, compared with their nonshort peers. There were no significant differences in the rest of the outcomes for children of short versus nonshort stature, in either unadjusted or adjusted models.

CONCLUSION: Although short children from a population-based sample reported marginally higher levels of self-perceived peer victimization, they did not differ from their nonshort peers in a range of social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

Key Words: short stature • quality of life • child

Abbreviations: GH—growth hormone • TRF—Teacher's Report Form • ITN—income/needs

Monitoring of linear growth during childhood represents one of the most important tasks for pediatric providers, with the American Academy of Pediatrics recommending measurement of a child's height and weight ≥20 times from birth through middle childhood.1 Children with growth that falls outside the normative values for stature, particularly children with short stature, defined as a height ranging from <3rd percentile to <10th percentile,2 raise concerns for both pediatric providers and parents. When the child is healthy, parental concern about height often is rooted in the perception that shorter children experience more problems in social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. However, parents may be misattributing these difficulties to short stature when actually they are related to other stressors.3

Previous studies reported that short children have higher rates of behavioral difficulties and lower social competency, compared with children of normal stature.4–6 However, interpretation of those studies was limited by several factors. Some studies included children with growth hormone (GH) deficiency or other syndromes, which made it unclear whether the underlying pathologic condition or short stature are responsible for the difficulties in psychosocial adjustment.5–7 Other studies lacked details regarding subject recruitment and subject nonresponse rates,4,7 which led to uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the samples.8 More recent studies have suggested that short children have normal psychosocial adjustment and the behavioral or social difficulties identified might have been attributed inappropriately to the short stature.9–11 Behavioral and peer-relationship ratings from most studies were mostly self- or parent- reported10–12 or were based on populations from a single medical center.5,10,11 Finally, previous studies included cohorts of children with heights of <3rd percentile. Pediatric providers, however, are confronted more commonly with families concerned about their children with less-extreme short stature (eg, height of <10th percentile), a population that is seeking evaluation for short stature in the pediatric specialty clinic setting13,14 but for which there are relatively few data regarding potential differences in behavioral and social functioning.

We are unaware of studies that have evaluated the relationship between psychosocial adaptation and stature among children of diverse socioeconomic status drawn from a variety of geographic areas. Furthermore, few studies have used both teacher reports and child reports. We sought to test the hypothesis that there would be no significant differences in social, emotional, and behavioral functioning between children of short stature (defined as <10th percentile) and those of nonshort stature in a recent, large, population-based cohort of children of diverse socioeconomic status drawn from 10 geographic regions in the United States.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study Group
We used the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, a population-based, longitudinal study of child behavior and development.15 Recruitment procedures were described previously.

Predictor
The main predictor was height at sixth grade, as measured by trained research assistants.16 We focused on height at 11 years of age because children often present with concerns about height at this age,14 and adolescence is thought to be a period when psychosocial stress associated with short stature is increased.17 Height z scores adjusted for age and gender were calculated by using the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts.18 Short stature was defined as height of <10th percentile, nonshort stature as height of ≥10th percentile, and average stature as height between the 25th and 75th percentiles. Comparisons between children with heights of <5th and >5th percentile could not be performed because of the small number of children with heights of <5th percentile (n = 11).

Outcomes
Child Behavior Problems (Teacher Report)
Behavioral problems were assessed by using the Achenbach Teacher's Report Form (TRF), as previous studies have evaluated potential differences in parent-reported internalizing and externalizing child behavioral difficulties on the basis of stature.4,6 The TRF is a validated standardized questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems among children.19 Scores are reported as T scores, with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10. Higher scores are indicative of more behavioral problems; a score >60 is considered borderline clinically significant.20

Childhood Depressive Symptoms (Child Report)
Because some studies examined potential differences in children's risk for anxiety/depression on the basis of stature,7 we evaluated for depressive symptoms by using the Children's Depression Inventory (Short Form), a 10-item questionnaire administered to children.21 Scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms. Scores of >8 for girls and >10 for boys are classified as well above average.

Optimism (Child Report)
Studies also evaluated potential differences in children's self-concept on the basis of stature4–6; therefore, we evaluated a measure of optimism by using the Life Orientation Test-Revised.22 Children were asked to respond to questions (Appendix) by using a 4-point scale (1 = not at all and 4 = a lot), with reverse coding as appropriate and with higher values indicating more optimism (actual scores in this sample ranged from 7 to 24).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		APPENDIX
 
Peer Relationships
Previous studies evaluated the potential influence of stature on children's social withdrawal and social competence.4,5,23 Therefore, we assessed peer relationships by using teacher reports from the asocial with peers, excluded by peers, and peer victimization scales of the Child Behavior with Peers questionnaire.16,24,25 Questionnaire items were answered on a 3-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = sometimes true, and 2 = often true) (Appendix). Scores are calculated as the mean of component items, with a possible range of 0 to 2 and with higher scores indicating more problem behaviors.

Child reports of peer victimization and social support from peers were drawn from the Peer Victimization, Social Support, and Bullying Questionnaire.25–29 Children responded by using a 5-point scale (never, hardly ever, sometimes, most of the time, or always) (Appendix). Higher scores indicate greater peer victimization or social support.

Popularity
Previous studies tested for differences in children's social relationships according to stature30; therefore, popularity was assessed by using the Relationships with Peers scale.31 Teachers ranked the child's popularity among same-gender children and a score was generated, accounting for the number of same-gender children in the class.16 Scores range from 0 to 1. For example, in a class of 10 same-gender children, the most popular child would have a score of 1 and the least popular child would have a score of 0.1.

Covariates
Gender (female versus male) was included as a covariate because studies have shown that more boys than girls are referred to specialist clinics for short stature.14,32 Additional covariates included race (other versus white), income/needs (ITN) ratio, and maternal education (in years). The ITN ratio is represented by total family income relative to the poverty line for a family of a particular size; families with ITN ratios of <1 are considered poor.

The initial sample was composed of 1364 children; by the sixth grade, 1077 families remained in the study. Seven hundred eighty-four children had complete data for height and TRF scores in the sixth grade. Children who were retained a grade (n = 62), skipped a grade (n = 5), or had missing information about their school status (n = 5) were excluded from the sample, because assessment of an association between stature and behavioral functioning or peer relationships could be biased by the inclusion of children who were not at the same stage of growth and development as their classmates.33 Those with complete data who were included in the analysis (N = 712) did not differ from those without complete data who were excluded from the analysis (n = 652) with respect to ITN ratio (P = .93) or height at first grade (P = .54). Compared with those who were excluded from the analysis, those who were included were more likely to be female (53.0% vs 43.3%; P = .0003), to be white (83.2% vs 77.5%; P = .01), and to have mothers with more years of education (14.5 vs 14.0; P = .0001).

Analyses
Analyses were performed by using SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), with separate analyses for each outcome measure (T scores for the TRF results and raw scores for the other measures). Unadjusted linear regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between stature and each outcome, and effect sizes were calculated. Adjusted, multivariate, linear regression models for each of the behavioral outcomes included the main predictor, that is, stature (short versus nonshort), and the covariates gender, race, ITN ratio, and maternal education. Separate models evaluated the interactions between stature and gender, between stature and maternal education, and between stature and ITN ratio. Because our definition of nonshort stature included tall children at the upper end of the height spectrum and tall children are assumed to be at a particular advantage with regard to stronger peer relationships and behavior,34 we also performed analyses comparing short children with children of average height (height between the 25th and 75th percentiles), as well as analyses using height z score as a continuous variable.

Finally, logistic regression models were used to evaluate outcome measures dichotomized into abnormal versus normal groups. Adverse outcomes were defined as T scores of >60 for the TRF total and subscale scores and Children's Depression Inventory scores of >8 for girls and >10 for boys. Scores in the highest quartile defined adverse outcomes for the asocial with peers, peer victimization (both teacher and child reports), and excluded by peers subscales. Scores in the lowest quartile defined adverse outcomes for the optimism, social support from peers, and popularity scales.

Our sample size provided 80% power, with an {alpha} value of .05, to detect a 0.5-SD difference in the outcome measures between short and nonshort children, which we suggest provides adequate power to detect clinically significant differences. To assess whether the differences between short and nonshort groups were clinically meaningful, we calculated Cohen's effect sizes for each of the outcome measures (Table 1). Cohen's effect size does not depend on the sample size and often is used to show the magnitude of the differences between groups. The small effect sizes (effect sizes of 0–0.35) indicated that there was no clinically meaningful difference between the short and nonshort groups.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1 Unadjusted Bivariate Associations Between Stature and Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Outcomes

 

   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The sample (N = 712) was 47.1% male and 83.2% white. The mean age was 11.9 years (SD: 0.3 years), the mean length of maternal education was 14.5 years (SD: 2.4 years), and the mean ITN ratio was 4.0 (SD: 2.9). There were no significant differences for short versus nonshort children according to gender, race, maternal education, or ITN ratio. Table 1 shows unadjusted bivariate comparisons for the outcome measures according to stature. The analyses failed to show any statistically significant differences between short and nonshort children. Effect sizes of stature on each outcome are shown in Table 1. The small effect sizes (effect sizes of 0–0.35) indicated that there was no clinically meaningful difference between short and nonshort groups.

Table 2 shows the relationships between stature and outcomes after adjustment for demographic characteristics. We detected a statistical trend suggesting that short versus nonshort children reported marginally higher levels of peer victimization (β = –0.25 ± 0.13; P = .052). When we dichotomized the outcome measure of peer victimization into normal versus abnormal groups, short children were more likely to fall into the abnormal group (odds ratio: 2.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.08–5.60]; P = .03). Apart from this trend for a single measure, short stature was not a significant predictor of the other outcomes. Tests of interactions between stature and gender, between stature and maternal education, and between stature and ITN ratio did not achieve statistical significance (data not shown). We also evaluated short versus average stature and evaluated height z score as a continuous variable in these models and found no main effect of stature (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2 Linear Regression Models Evaluating Associations of Short Stature in Grade 6 With Behavioral and Peer Relationship Outcomes

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Despite the statistical trend for short stature to be associated with increased self-perceptions of peer victimization, this was not associated with poorer adaptation, as we failed to find that short stature was otherwise associated with adverse behavioral outcomes or peer relationships, as reported by either teacher or child, even after adjustment for demographic covariates. These findings are congruent with previous studies showing that short children may report higher rates of teasing or victimization but do not experience significant psychosocial problems attributable to their short stature.17,35

Teasing is a normative experience for children36,37; however, we speculate that short children who receive comments from peers such as "midget," "shrimp," or "shorty" may perceive this teasing in a more-personal way. Furthermore, these comments may be reinforced by parents who verbalize concerns about their child's height and its possible negative impact on social functioning, in the present or in the future. However, short children in our study were no different from their nonshort peers with respect to exclusion by their peers, social support, popularity, asociality with peers, teacher report of peer victimization, childhood depressive symptoms, or externalizing or internalizing behavioral problems.

The strengths of this analysis include the use of validated behavior and peer relationship measures, the use of teacher-reported as well as child-reported ratings, and the fact that the sample was a large, population-based cohort of children of relatively diverse socioeconomic status and geographic origin. The results of this study challenge the assumption that children who are shorter than average experience a poorer quality of life, as reflected in social, emotional, and behavioral functioning.

These data have clinical utility for pediatric providers confronted with short children in a variety of clinical scenarios. As the primary providers for children with chronic diseases such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or asthma, pediatric providers often prescribe medications that result in improved disease control but may have untoward adverse effects on growth. Although the data are mixed, some studies have shown that both stimulant use by children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and inhaled corticosteroid use by children with asthma can be associated with temporary growth deficits.38–41 The results of our study allow providers to reassure parents that temporary decreases in growth, leading to short stature, are unlikely to have a significant impact on their child's quality of life.

Since the approval of GH therapy for idiopathic short stature by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2003, pediatric providers are likely encountering an increasing number of parents inquiring about GH therapy for their child.42 GH is currently approved only for short but otherwise healthy children in the bottom 1.2 percentile of the height distribution.13 However, it has been noted anecdotally that an increasing number of parents are seeking evaluation for off-label use of GH therapy, even for children of moderate short stature (eg, 5th to 10th percentile). The results of our study may reassure some parents of children with moderate short stature that such treatment is not warranted to improve their child's quality of life.

Our inability to detect an association between stature and psychosocial adaptation contrasts with the findings of Stabler et al,6 who reported higher rates of internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems and lower social competency among 166 children who were referred to a large number of subspecialty pediatric endocrinology clinics for evaluation of short stature (height of <3rd percentile), including 80 children with idiopathic short stature. However, that study was based on a sample of children from the National Cooperative Growth Study, a postmarketing database of children treated with GH for which participating centers were self-selected. Furthermore, that study did not include information about subject recruitment and nonresponse rates for the sample, resulting in the potential for sampling bias.8

Other studies based on clinical samples are more consistent with our findings. Sandberg et al10 evaluated a consecutively recruited cohort of 264 children of diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status who were referred to a pediatric endocrinology clinic because of short stature, defined as height of ≤5th percentile. Those authors found that short stature was not associated with clinically significant psychosocial morbidity. In another clinic-based study, Zimet et al11 evaluated a sample of 41 consecutively recruited children who were evaluated for short stature (the majority of whom had height of <5th percentile), and they did not find significant psychosocial adjustment problems, compared with published, population-based normative values.

Previous population-based studies also lend support to our findings. In a cohort of 956 children in grades 6 to 12 in a public school district, Sandberg et al17 found no significant differences in peer ratings of friendship, popularity, or reputation for children of short stature (height percentile of ≤5th percentile), compared with average stature (height between the 25th and 75th percentiles), and found no evidence for a moderating effect of gender. Given that clinical samples are characterized by overrepresentation of boys,14,32 increased referral rates for boys may be prompted more by negative stereotypes of short boys and men than by actual moderating effects of gender on the relationships between height and behavioral and peer outcomes.

We note that interpretation of the absence of significant interactions should be performed with caution, given the number of short children in this sample. We also evaluated height z score as a continuous variable, which would give additional power for examination of the associations. Finally, we examined whether short children were more likely to function in the abnormal ranges of these measures. With the sole exception of child report of self-perceived peer victimization, we did not find an association, which confirmed our findings of a lack of differences between short and nonshort children, even at the extremes of behavioral functioning.

Limitations of our study include the small number of children with height of <1.2st or <5th percentile and the narrow age range of the children; it is possible that outcomes between short and nonshort children may differ across the age spectrum from early childhood to late adolescence and adulthood. In addition, given that the timing of the pubertal growth spurt varies, we recognize that some children might have had only transient shortness and might be destined to reach a more-typical adult height. Provision of reassuring information regarding behavioral and social functioning to parents of these children remains important even if the short stature is transient. Finally, given the public policy ramifications of GH use for idiopathic short stature, we recognize that additional studies are needed to evaluate behavioral and psychosocial outcomes for children with heights in the bottom 1.2 percentile.

Pediatric providers may reassure families that children with stature in the lower ranges of height from a population-based sample do not experience poorer social, emotional, or behavioral functioning, compared with their taller peers. Therefore, changes in management or pursuit of subspecialty evaluation purely on the basis of concerns about psychosocial adaptation seem to be unwarranted. The primary approach for otherwise-healthy children for whom concerns are raised regarding the social, emotional, or behavioral impact of short stature remains reassurance.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Dr Lee was supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant K08DK082386 and the Clinical Sciences Scholars Program at the University of Michigan. This project was supported by American Heart Association Midwest Affiliate grant-in-aid 0455563Z to Dr Lumeng.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Accepted May 6, 2009.

Address correspondence to Joyce M. Lee, MD, MPH, Pediatric Endocrinology, Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, University of Michigan, 300 NIB, Room 6E08, Campus Box 5456, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5456. E-mail: joyclee{at}umich.edu

This work was presented in part at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society; June 24–28, 2006; Boston, MA.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.


What's Known on This Subject:

There is a paucity of data regarding potential differences in behavioral and social functioning for children of moderately short stature (height of <10th percentile).

 

What This Study Adds:

This study found that short children did not differ from their nonshort peers in a range of social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes, which suggests that there is little, if any, association between short stature and social, emotional, or behavioral difficulties.

 


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Recommendations for preventive pediatric health care (periodicity schedule). Available at: http://practice.aap.org/content.aspx?aid=1599. Accessed April 8, 2008
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Criteria for Determining Disability in Infants and Children: Short Stature. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 73, AHRQ Publication 03-E025
  3. Sandberg DE, Colsman M. Growth hormone treatment of short stature: status of the quality of life rationale. Horm Res. 2005;63 (6):275 –283[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Gordon M, Crouthamel C, Post EM, Richman RA. Psychosocial aspects of constitutional short stature: social competence, behavior problems, self-esteem, and family functioning. J Pediatr. 1982;101 (3):477 –480[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Money J, Pollitt E. Studies in the psychology of dwarfism, part II: personality maturation and response to growth hormone treatment in hypopituitary dwarfs. J Pediatr. 1966;68 (3):381 –390[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Stabler B, Clopper RR, Siegel PT, Stoppani C, Compton PG, Underwood LE. Academic achievement and psychological adjustment in short children. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1994;15 (1):1 –6[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Stabler B, Siegel PT, Clopper RR, Stoppani CE, Compton PG, Underwood LE. Behavior change after growth hormone treatment of children with short stature. J Pediatr. 1998;133 (3):366 –373[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Sandberg DE, Kranzler J, Bukowski WM, Rosenbloom AL. Psychosocial aspects of short stature and growth hormone therapy [letter]. J Pediatr. 1999;135 (1):133 –134[Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Kranzler JH, Rosenbloom AL, Proctor B, Diamond FB Jr, Watson M. Is short stature a handicap? A comparison of the psychosocial functioning of referred and nonreferred children with normal short stature and children with normal stature. J Pediatr. 2000;136 (1):96 –102[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Sandberg DE, Brook AE, Campos SP. Short stature: a psychosocial burden requiring growth hormone therapy? Pediatrics. 1994;94 (6):832 –840[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Zimet GD, Cutler M, Litvene M, Dahms W, Owens R, Cuttler L. Psychological adjustment of children evaluated for short stature: a preliminary report. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1995;16 (4):264 –270[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Theunissen NC, Kamp GA, Koopman HM, Zwinderman KA, Vogels T, Wit JM. Quality of life and self-esteem in children treated for idiopathic short stature. J Pediatr. 2002;140 (5):507 –515[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Cuttler L, Silvers JB. Growth hormone treatment for idiopathic short stature: implications for practice and policy. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158 (2):108 –110[Free Full Text]
  14. Lee JM, Davis MM, Clark SJ, Kemper AR. Threshold of evaluation for short stature in a pediatric endocrine clinic: differences between boys versus girls? J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2007;20 (1):21 –26[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Operations Manual: Recruitment Procedures. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 1991. Available at: https://secc.rti.org/display.cfm?t=m&i=Chapter_4. Accessed January 12, 2006
  16. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase 3 Data Manuals. Available at: http://secc.rti.org/manuals.cfm?P=3. Accessed January 12, 2006
  17. Sandberg DE, Bukowski WM, Fung CM, Noll RB. Height and social adjustment: are extremes a cause for concern and action? Pediatrics. 2004;114 (3):744 –750[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Guo SS, et al. 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital Health Stat 11. 2002;(246):1 –190
  19. Achenbach T. Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont; 1991
  20. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont; 2001
  21. Kovacs M. Children's Depression Inventory. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems; 1992
  22. Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67 (6):1063 –1078[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Siegel PT, Clopper R, Stabler B. Psychological impact of significantly short stature. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1991;377 :14 –18[Medline]
  24. Ladd GW, Profilet SM. The Child Behavior Scale: a teacher-report measure of young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Dev Psychol. 1996;32 (6):1008 –1024[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  25. Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW. Peer victimization: cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Dev. 1996;67 (4):1305 –1317[Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Ladd GW, Kochenderfer BJ, Coleman CC. Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children's school adjustment? Child Dev. 1997;68 (6):1181 –1197[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW. Victimized children's responses to peers' aggression: behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization. Dev Psychopathol. 1997;9 (1):59 –73[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  28. Ladd GW, Kochenderfer BJ, Coleman CC. Friendship quality as a predictor of young children's early school adjustment. Child Dev. 1996;67 (3):1103 –1118[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW. Peer victimization: manifestations and relations to school adjustment in kindergarten. J Sch Psychol. 1996;34 (3):267 –283[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  30. Meyer-Bahlburg HFL. Short stature: psychological issues. In: Lifshitz F, ed. Pediatric Endocrinology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1990:173 –196
  31. Ladd GW. Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1983;29 (3):283 –307
  32. Grimberg A, Kutikov JK, Cucchiara AJ. Sex differences in patients referred for evaluation of poor growth. J Pediatr. 2005;146 (2):212 –216[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Borowsky IW, Ireland M, Resnick MD. Violence risk and protective factors among youth held back in school. Ambul Pediatr. 2002;2 (6):475 –484[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Finkelstein BS, Singh J, Silvers JB, Marrero U, Neuhauser D, Cuttler L. Patient attitudes and preferences regarding treatment: GH therapy for childhood short stature. Horm Res. 1999;51 (suppl 1):67 –72[Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Voss LD, Mulligan J. Bullying in school: are short pupils at risk? Questionnaire study in a cohort. BMJ. 2000;320 (7235):612 –613[Free Full Text]
  36. Warm TR. The role of teasing in development and vice versa. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1997;18 (2):97 –101[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Keltner D, Capps L, Kring AM, Young RC, Heerey EA. Just teasing: a conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychol Bull. 2001;127 (2):229 –248[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Spencer TJ, Biederman J, Harding M, O'Donnell D, Faraone SV, Wilens TE. Growth deficits in ADHD children revisited: evidence for disorder-associated growth delays? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1996;35 (11):1460 –1469[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  39. Spencer TJ, Biederman J, Harding M, O'Donnell D, Faraone SV, Wilens T. Growth deficits in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics. 1998;102 (2 suppl):501 –506[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Doull IJ, Freezer NJ, Holgate ST. Growth of prepubertal children with mild asthma treated with inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;151 (6):1715 –1719[Abstract]
  41. Sharek PJ, Bergman DA. The effect of inhaled steroids on the linear growth of children with asthma: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2000;106 (1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/106/1/e8
  42. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Humatrope for short stature. Previously available at: www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01242.html. Accessed July 7, 2004
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2009 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lumeng, J. C.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lumeng, J. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Genitourinary Tract
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?