Exploratory behavior and developmental skill acquisition in infants with Down syndrome

Fidler, Deborah J.; Schworer, Emily K.; Prince, Mark A.; Will, Elizabeth; Needham, Amy; Daunhauer, Lisa A.

doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2019.02.002

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, its predictive validity is better than that of the MDI measured at 4 and 8 months, as the latter predicts cognitive outcome to a limited extent . Our limited data on infants with trisomy 21 indicated that SINDA’s developmental scale may also to some extent guide the expectations of the later cognitive abilities in these infants—abilities that are known to be heterogeneous …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…30 Our limited data on infants with trisomy 21 indicated that SINDA's developmental scale may also to some extent guide the expectations of the later cognitive abilities in these infants-abilities that are known to be heterogeneous. 31 SINDA's neurological scale predicted atypical outcome very well, but not perfectly. Addition of the developmental scale did not improve prediction in the infants with a typical neurological score (>21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment developmental and socio‐emotional scales: reliability and predictive value in an at‐risk population

Hadders‐Algra

Tacke

Pietz³

et al. 2019

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To assess the reliability and predictive validity of the developmental and socio‐emotional scales of the Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment (SINDA). Method To assess reliability, two sets of three assessors forming eight assessor‐pairs independently rated the developmental and socio‐emotional scales of 60 infants. To evaluate predictive validity, 223 infants (gestational age 30wks [range 23–41wks]; 117 males, 106 females) attending a non‐academic outpatient clinic were assessed by different assessors with SINDA’s neurological, developmental, and socio‐emotional scales. Atypical neurodevelopmental outcome at a corrected age of 24 months or older implied a Bayley Mental or Psychomotor Developmental Index score of less than 70 or neurological disorder (including cerebral palsy). Behavioural and emotional disorders were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Predictive values were calculated from SINDA (2–12mo corrected age, median 7mo) and typical versus atypical outcome, and for intellectual disability only (Mental Developmental Index <70). Results Assessors highly agreed on the developmental and socio‐emotional assessments (developmental scores: Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient ρ=0.972; single socio‐emotional behaviour items: Cohen’s κ=0.783–0.896). At 24 months or older, 65 children had atypical outcome. Atypical neurological scores predicted atypical outcome (sensitivity 83%, specificity 96%); atypical developmental scores predicted intellectual disability (sensitivity 77%, specificity 92%). Atypical emotionality and atypical self‐regulation were associated with behavioural and emotional disorders. Interpretation SINDA’s three scales are reliable, and have a satisfactory predictive validity for atypical developmental outcome at 24 months or older in a non‐academic outpatient setting. SINDA’s developmental scale has promising predictive validity for intellectual disability. SINDA’s socio‐emotional scale is a tool for caregiver counselling. What this paper adds Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment (SINDA)’s developmental and socio‐emotional scales have excellent interrater reliability. Replication of the satisfactory validity of SINDA’s neurological scale for atypical outcome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment developmental and socio‐emotional scales: reliability and predictive value in an at‐risk population

Hadders‐Algra

Tacke

Pietz³

et al. 2019

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the achievement of walking has a positive impact on their later cognitive and language development. Supporting this, Fidler [ 43 ] showed that a more active exploratory profile in infants with DS is related to higher age equivalent scores in motor, cognitive and communication development. However, the relationship between motor skills and language/cognitive development is not very clear in individuals with DS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…(i) expand the knowledge on the age of acquisition of developmental milestones; on the basis of previous studies we could expect a mean onset of sitting at 10 months [ 20 , 28 , 29 ], walking at 27 [ 28 , 29 ] and babbling at 12–16 months [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], while the mean age of reaching sphincter control is not very clear (Dolva [ 31 ] suggested between 60 and 70 months).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Age of Developmental Milestones a Predictor for Future Development in Down Syndrome?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Down Syndrome (DS) is the most common genetic alteration responsible for intellectual disability, which refers to deficits in both intellectual and adaptive functioning. According to this, individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) reach developmental milestones (e.g., sitting, walking, and babbling) in the same order as their typically developing peers, but later in life. Since developmental milestones are the first blocks on which development builds, the aims of the current study are to: (i) expand the knowledge of developmental milestone acquisition; and (ii) explore the relationship between developmental milestone acquisition and later development. For this purpose 105 children/adolescents with DS were involved in this study, divided in two groups, Preschoolers (n = 39) and School-age participants (n = 66). Information on the age of acquisition of Sitting, Walking, Babbling, and Sphincter Control was collected, together with cognitive, motor, and adaptive functioning. Sitting predicted later motor development, but, with age, it became less important in predicting motor development in everyday life. Babbling predicted later language development in older children. Finally, Sphincter Control emerged as the strongest predictor of motor, cognitive, language, and adaptive skills, with its role being more evident with increasing age. Our data suggest that the age of reaching the milestones considered in the study has an influence on successive development, a role that can be due to common neural substrates, the environment, and the developmental cascade effect.

show abstract

“…Specifically, one of my former students, Debbie Fidler, and her group have begun to examine how young children come to develop several etiology-related behaviors (Fidler, 2011). These researchers have examined the early development of young children with Down syndrome (Fidler, Most, Booth-LaForce, & Kelly, 2008; Fidler et al, 2019) and Williams syndrome (Hepburn, Fidler, Hahn, & Philofsky, 2011). In both groups, one begins to see the origins of what later become full-blown etiology-related behaviors.…”

Section: Organismic Concerns: Appreciating the Two-group Approach And Its Current Outgrowthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ed Zigler's developmental approach to intellectual disabilities: Past, present, and future contributions

Hodapp

2021

Dev Psychopathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprising two parts, Ed Zigler's developmental approach has greatly influenced how one conceptualizes children with intellectual disabilities (ID). In part one, Zigler championed a “two-group approach” concerning the cause of children's ID. He distinguished persons with a clear, organic cause of their ID from those displaying no clear cause. Members of this “organic” group often displayed IQs below 50 and co-occurring physical–medical conditions. The second, “cultural–familial” group, mostly showed IQs of 50–70, did not possess co-occurring physical or health problems, and often came from families of lower IQs and lower socioeconomic status. While the presence of these two groups has been supported, recent advances have also further differentiated the organic group, mostly in relation to behavioral phenotypes of persons with several genetic etiologies. In part two, Zigler championed the child with ID as a “whole person.” Originally focused on the child's reactions to social deprivation and failure, recent studies directly examine parent–child, within-family, and wider system interactions throughout the life span. For decades a force within the ID field, Zigler's developmental approach to children with ID continues to influence researchers, interventionists, and policymakers.

show abstract

Exploratory behavior and developmental skill acquisition in infants with Down syndrome

Cited by 23 publications

References 50 publications

Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment developmental and socio‐emotional scales: reliability and predictive value in an at‐risk population

Standardized Infant NeuroDevelopmental Assessment developmental and socio‐emotional scales: reliability and predictive value in an at‐risk population

Is the Age of Developmental Milestones a Predictor for Future Development in Down Syndrome?

Ed Zigler's developmental approach to intellectual disabilities: Past, present, and future contributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About