0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Agreement Between Bayley Scales Second and Third Edition Assessments of Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants FREE

Rita C. Silveira, PhD, MD; Gabriela R. Filipouski, PSc, MSc; Donald J. Goldstein, PhD; T. Michael O’Shea, MD, MPH; Renato S. Procianoy, PhD, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Neonatal Section, Department of Pediatrics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul and Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil (Drs Silveira, Filipouski, and Procianoy); and Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina (Dr Goldstein and O’Shea).


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(11):1075-1076. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.732.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

The Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) are the most widely used assessments to identify children with developmental delay. Between 1993 and 2006, the BSID–Second Edition (BSID-II)1 was used; in 2006, a third edition (BSID-III)2 was published.

Rather than the 2-factor model of the BSID-II that described mental and psychomotor development, the BSID-III purports to assess 5 separate areas: cognition, language, motor, social-emotional, and adaptive. The aim of this study was to compare the BSID-II Mental and Motor scale scores and the BSID-III Motor, Cognitive, and Language scale scores in a cohort of very low-birth-weight preterm infants.

This study was approved by our institutional ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained for all participants.

We enrolled preterm infants with a birth weight less than 1500 g and gestational age less than 32 weeks, who were born in the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, a level 3 referral center for high-risk neonates in southern Brazil, and survived to 24 months of age. We excluded infants with major congenital malformations, inborn errors, or chromosomal anomalies, congenital infections, severe hearing loss, blindness, or severe cerebral palsy.

Neurodevelopmental Assessments

The BSID-II was administered at 22 to 24 months' corrected age, immediately before a follow-up visit to our Follow-up Clinic. The BSID-II yields a Mental Development Index and Psychomotor Development Index. Within 2 months after the assessment with the BSID-II, study participants were assessed using the BSID-III, which yields Cognitive, Language, and Motor scale scores. A single psychologist (G.R.F.) administered the BSID-II and BSID-III in Portuguese.

Statistical Analyses

Comparison between groups was performed with a 2-tailed χ2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and a t test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables.

During the study period, 60 children met inclusion criteria and underwent BSID-II and BSID-III assessments at 22 to 24 months' corrected age. The mean birth weight and gestational age were 1200 g and 30 weeks, respectively; 66% were female and 58 were small for gestational age. Median scores (interquartile range) for the BSID-II Mental Development Index and Psychomotor Development Index were 81 (75-87) and 80 (74-90), respectively (Table). On the BSID-III, median scores (interquartile range) for the Cognitive, Language, and Motor scales were 90 (85-95), 89 (83-94), and 94 (85-100), respectively. The median score for the BSID-II Mental Development Index was 9 points lower than that of the BSID-III Cognitive Scale score and 8 points lower than the BSID-III Language Scale score. The median score for the BSID-II Psychomotor Development Index was 14 points lower than the BSID-III Motor Scale score. Infants were more likely to be classified as having developmental delay when assessed with the BSID-II.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Comparison of Assessments With the BSID-II or BSID-III

We found that among a cohort of very low-birth-weight preterm infants who were assessed at about 24 months' adjusted age, lower scores were obtained using the BSID-II as compared with the BSID-III. This was particularly evident with assessment of motor skills, where the difference between BSID-II and BSID-III scores was almost equal to 1 SD. These findings agree with studies of infants who underwent neonatal surgery for congenital heart disease3 and infants born prematurely.4,5 Our study has implications for those interested in improving developmental outcome for high-risk infants. As emphasized by Msall,6 clinicians should be mindful of the possibility that the BSID-III is less sensitive than the BSID-II for identification of infants who might benefit from early intervention. Researchers should be cautious when comparing studies using the 2 most recent versions of the BSID and when estimating sample size for prospective studies based on data collected with the BSID-II.

Correspondence: Dr O’Shea, Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157 (moshea@wfubmc.edu).

Published Online: September 24, 2012. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.732

Author Contributions: Drs Silveira and Procianoy had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Silveira and Procianoy. Acquisition of data: Silveira, Filipouski, and Procianoy. Analysis and interpretation of data: Silveira, Goldstein, O’Shea, and Procianoy. Drafting of the manuscript: Silveira, Filipouski, O’Shea, and Procianoy. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Silveira, Goldstein, O’Shea, and Procianoy. Statistical analysis: Silveira, Filipouski, O’Shea, and Procianoy. Administrative, technical, and material support: Silveira, Filipouski, Goldstein, and Procianoy. Study supervision: Silveira and Procianoy.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1993
Bayley N. Technical Manual of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Inc; 2006
Acton BV, Biggs WSG, Creighton DE,  et al.  Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after early complex cardiac surgery.  Pediatrics. 2011;128(4):e794-e800
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lowe JR, Erickson SJ, Schrader R, Duncan AF. Comparison of the Bayley II Mental Developmental Index and the Bayley III Cognitive Scale: are we measuring the same thing?  Acta Paediatr. 2012;101(2):e55-e58
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moore T, Johnson S, Haider S, Hennessy E, Marlow N. Relationship between test scores using the second and third editions of the Bayley Scales in extremely preterm children.  J Pediatr. 2012;160(4):553-558
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Msall ME. Measuring outcomes after extreme prematurity with the Bayley-III Scales of infant and toddler development: a cautionary tale from Australia.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(4):391-393
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Comparison of Assessments With the BSID-II or BSID-III

References

Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1993
Bayley N. Technical Manual of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Inc; 2006
Acton BV, Biggs WSG, Creighton DE,  et al.  Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after early complex cardiac surgery.  Pediatrics. 2011;128(4):e794-e800
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lowe JR, Erickson SJ, Schrader R, Duncan AF. Comparison of the Bayley II Mental Developmental Index and the Bayley III Cognitive Scale: are we measuring the same thing?  Acta Paediatr. 2012;101(2):e55-e58
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moore T, Johnson S, Haider S, Hennessy E, Marlow N. Relationship between test scores using the second and third editions of the Bayley Scales in extremely preterm children.  J Pediatr. 2012;160(4):553-558
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Msall ME. Measuring outcomes after extreme prematurity with the Bayley-III Scales of infant and toddler development: a cautionary tale from Australia.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(4):391-393
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com