Differential susceptibility to early literacy intervention in children with mild perinatal adversities: Short- and long-term effects of a randomized control trial.

Abstract

In a randomized control trial, the authors tested whether short-and long-term effects of an early literacy intervention are moderated by mild perinatal adversities in accordance with differential susceptibility theory. One-hundred 5-year-old children (58% male) who scored at or below the 30th percentile on early literacy measures were randomized to a Web-based remedial early literacy program Living Letters or a treated control group. Parents gave written informed consent to access the perinatal data of their children at the Perinatal Register in the Netherlands. Twenty-one children were, at birth, small for gestational age (between the 2.5th and 10th percentiles) or late preterm (between 34 and 37 weeks, 6 days). In this group with mild perinatal adversities, intervention children outperformed the control group immediately after the intervention and after 8 months of formal reading instruction, but a similar effect of the computerized literacy program in children without mild perinatal adversities was absent. In line with the theory of differential susceptibility, children with mild perinatal adversities seem to be more open to environmental input, for better and for worse.

Mild perinatal adversities moderate the association between maternal harsh parenting and hair cortisol: Evidence for differential susceptibility

“…For example, cognitive development of mild small for gestational age children is delayed, with increased risk of learning disabilities in childhood, and lower educational achievement among adults born near-term (Johnson & Breslau, 2000;Kirkegaard et al, 2006;Nomura et al, 2009;Van der Kooy-Hofland et al, 2012). We argue here that mild perinatal adversities not only are a risk for the children involved but also an asset as it makes them benefit more from benign environments compared to their peers born at term Van der Kooy-Hofland et al, 2012). …”

“…However, children differ in their susceptibility to the effects of parental care and other environmental influences due to genetic, behavioral, or physiological susceptibility factors (Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van IJzendoorn, 2011). Previous research has shown that children with a history of mild perinatal adversities (late prematurity or low birth weight at full term birth) are more susceptible to environmental influences than children without perinatal adversities (Van der Kooy-Hofland, Van der Kooy, Bus, Van IJzendoorn, & Bonsel, 2012).…”

“…In fact, the effect of the intervention was absent in children without mild perinatal adversities (Van der Kooy-Hofland et al, 2012). In fact, the effect of the intervention was absent in children without mild perinatal adversities (Van der Kooy-Hofland et al, 2012).…”

“…Milder perinatal adversities have also been associated with risks for medical and neurocognitive problems later in life (e.g., Chyi, Lee, Hintz, Gould, & Sutcliffe, 2008;Kirkegaard, Obel, Hedegaard, & Henriksen, 2006;Lee, Yeatman, Luna, & Feldman, 2011;Morse, Zheng, Tang, & Roth, 2009;Van Baar, Vermaas, Knots, de Kleine, & Soons, 2009). For example, cognitive development of mild small for gestational age children is delayed, with increased risk of learning disabilities in childhood, and lower educational achievement among adults born near-term (Johnson & Breslau, 2000;Kirkegaard et al, 2006;Nomura et al, 2009;Van der Kooy-Hofland et al, 2012). We argue here that mild perinatal adversities not only are a risk for the children involved but also an asset as it makes them benefit more from benign environments compared to their peers born at term Van der Kooy-Hofland et al, 2012).…”

Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later?

“…In a recent series of adolescent reading interventions summarized in Vaughn and Fletcher (2012), one year of intervention produced small effects that largely were not statistically significant in a much larger sample. However, continuing the intervention with adolescents who had not responded adequately for two to three years led to moderate effect size advantages after the second year and a large effect on reading comprehension after three years, the latter partly because the standard scores for the comparison group declined from Grades 6 to 8.…”