Developmental outcome, including setback, in young children with severe visual impairment

Abstract

This study retrospectively investigated the developmental perspective of 69 children (40 males, 29 females) with‘potentially simple’congenital disorders of the peripheral visual system: development was examined in the context of degree of visual impairment. Developmental and visual assessments were carried out at 10 to 16 months (Time 1) and 27 to 54 months of age (Time 2). Participants were grouped according to (1) visual status: profound visual impairment (PVI), severe visual impairment (SVI); (2) developmental status on the Reynell‐Zinkin scales. A majority of the sample showed normal development on all subscales (62% Time 1, 57% Time 2). Those with PVI were more developmentally vulnerable than SVI with a greater incidence of (1) uneven developmental profile at Time 1 (48% PVI, 16% SVI); (2) global learning difficulties at Time 2 (37% PVI, 0% SVI); (3) delay on individual subscales at Time 2 (p<0.02 PVI versus SVI); (4) deceleration (verbal comprehension 74% PVI, 24% SVI, sensorimotor understanding 70% PVI, 27% SVI); and (5) severe developmental setback (33% PVI, 7% SVI). Risk factors of visual level, age, and sex for poor developmental outcome in infants with visual impairment were established.

A Systematic Review of the Literature on Parenting of Young Children with Visual Impairments and the Adaptions for Video-Feedback Intervention to Promote Positive Parenting (VIPP)

“…

Verbal signals of the child

There appear to be quantitative and qualitative differences between the verbal signs of sighted infants and infants with a visual impairment. Studies indicate that although there is great variety in patterns of development and in some children, once started, rapid progress in language (McConachie and Moore 1994), children with profound visual impairments are at risk of developmental delay in language (Dale and Sonksen 2002; McConachie and Moore 1994; Wills 1979). In some studies fewer periods of positive vocalizations, fewer responses and fewer initiations were found in the dialogue of children with visual impairments with their caregiver compared to sighted children (Rogers and Puchalski 1984b; Skellenger et al 1997).

…”

“…However, studies that describe the relationship between joint attention and language development mainly refer to the problems of creating and sharing symbolic and linguistic meanings during moments of joint attention (Loots et al 2003). These studies also refer to the difficulties of children with profound visual impairments to understand language which refers to objects (Dale and Sonksen 2002). Problems of children with visual impairments to comply with simple commands (e.g.…”

“…)Si: N  = 37Age: 3–6 y.Blind, no additional impairmentsComparative designFirst order false belief tasks Tom tasks based on tactile and auditory experience.Interaction 3 Joint attention 1 Campbell (2003) AustraliaBl: N  = 4Si: N  = 4Age: 18 m.Blind, no additional impairments (2 premature), sightedObservational comparative descriptive design.Video analysis of play sessions mother-childChild Data language exchange system: mother’s and child’s utterances and actions: frequency and length.Interaction 2 Joint attention 3 Specific behavior 4 Campbell (2007) Australia N  = 2 (dyads)Age: 19 m.Blind, no additional impairmentsObservational descriptive design of two case studiesQuality of interaction in play context, using the Emotional Availability Scale (EAS).Interaction 3 Celeste (2006) USA N  = 1Age: 4.6 y.Visually impaired, no additional impairmentsObservational single case studyPlay behavior and social interactions.Developmental and adaptive assessments BDI, Oregon, VABS, structured play assessment, peer related social behavior, POS, ISBSsociometric ratings, interviewsExploration 1 Play behavior 3 Conti-Ramsden and Perez-Pereira (1999) Spain N  = 1 Bl (dyad) N  = 1 VI (dyad) N  = 1 Si (dyad)Age: 22 m.- 23-25 m.Blind (premature), visually impaired, sightedComparative design3 monthly video analysis of conversational interactions of mother child dyads: Verbal and nonverbal events. CHAT and CHILDESInteraction 1,2 Joint attention 3 Dale and Sonksen (2002) UK N  = 69Age Time 1: 10–16 m.Age Time 2: 27–54 m.Visually Impaired, blind (PVI no form vision), no additional impairmentsComparative study at time 1 and time 2Visual assessment and developmental assessmentInteraction 1 Joint attention 1 De Campos et al (2012) BrazilReview N  = 18 studiesAge: 4–24 m.Children at riskReviewRole of developmental risk factors on development of exploratory actions.Exploration 2 Demingeon-Pessonneaux et al (2007) France N  = 9 (dyads: mother- child, stranger- child)Age:Si: N  = 35–8 m.VI: N  = 3 (1 Bl)12–41 m.VI+ add imp: N  = 322–62 m.Sighted, visually impaired (1blind), visually impaired with additional impairmentsQuantitative computer program registries interaction verbal, non-verbalQuantitative computer analysis of interactions and communication Dynamic lnterCoder SystemInteraction 3 Dote-Kwan and Hughes (1994) USA N  = 18 (dyads)Age: 20–36 m.Blind, no additional impairments (7 prematur...…”

Parenting stress, anxiety, and depression in mothers with visually impaired infants: a cross‐sectional and longitudinal cohort analysis

“…Chronic congenital visual impairment affects early development and behaviour. 1 Infant disability is a risk factor for elevated parenting stress, depression, and anxiety. [2][3][4] Risk factors associated with poor parental well-being are common in children with visual impairment, for example: intellectual disability, behaviour difficulties, communication problems, and autism spectrum disorder.…”

Gait adaptations after vestibular stimulation in children with congenital visual impairments: a comparative study

“…The group of individuals with visual impairments is the most informative as for the accurate comprehension of the developmental processes since they represent the lowest probability of confusion between the variables [27]. The central processing of visual information is not affected in this population, so it is considerably likely that the observed differences in the spatiotemporal parameters of the gait may be only related to the absence of visual information.…”