The Relationship of Socioeconomic Status and Sex to Body Size, Skeletal Maturation, and Cognitive Status of Guatemala City Schoolchildren

Abstract

Longitudinal data from a study of child development in Guatemala City were used to describe the influence of socioeconomic status and sex on physical and cognitive growth status. The correlation between the growth status variables was also analyzed. The sample included 144 Guatemalan children, 46 of low SES, 52 of middle SES, and 46 of high SES. The children were students in 5 urban primary schools. 3 physical variables, height, weight, and skeletal age, were measured annually from first to sixth grade. Two cognitive variables, general intelligence and reading ability, were measured in grades 1, 3, 4, or 5. Significant differences between SES groups existed for all variables. However, the differences in each grade were greater for the cognitive measures than for the physical measures. Compared with high SES children, middle SES boys and low SES boys and girls experienced significantly greater delayed growth in height than in weight or skeletal age. It is possible that these height delays may result in a permanent reduction in stature. The only consistently significant sex-related difference was for skeletal age; girls were more mature than boys in each grade. When SES was statistically controlled, there was no significant correlation between physical and cognitive growth status for girls and only a few moderate but statistically significant correlations for boys.

Longitudinal growth in height, weight, and bone age of Guatemalan Ladino and Indian schoolchildren

“…This is not a n unexpected finding: in fact, it h a s been seen in previous work with Guatemalan urban children (Bogin and MacVean, 1983), Guatemalan rural children (Martorell et al, 1979), and in general reviews of the genetics of skeletal maturation (Bailey and Garn, 1986). In practical terms, the relatively greater delay in growth than in skeletal maturation of the lower SES children means that they are likely to remain significantly shorter and lighter than high SES children at all ages, and remain smaller as adults.…”

“…Bone age was assessed by using the methods of Greulich and Pyle (1959). A description of the radiographic methods was described by Bogin and MacVean (1983). It is fortunate that during the period 1976 to 1985 the personnel responsible for the growth measurements changedlittle: I n fact two people have been part of this team (of five) for the entire time.…”

Motor Development in Malnourished Children in Indonesia

“…7 Some studies showed no difference in the cognitive development of malnourished and betterfed siblings 8 and in the cognition after control of variables for socioeconomic status. 9 However, other studies showed mild to moderate malnutrition affected the child's development adversely even when other environmental characteristics were considered. 10 Very few reports mentioned the effects on motor development of mildly to moderately malnourished infants.…”

Determinants of relative skeletal maturity in South African children

“…Age appropriate or advanced skeletal maturity is a reflection of adequate environmental and social conditions, whereas delayed maturation suggests inadequate conditions for optimal development. Comparisons of skeletal maturity between samples of populations can therefore reveal degrees of environmental disadvantage [1][2][3][4] while longitudinal observations of maturational markers within a population demonstrate the plasticity of humans in response to environmental change [5]. However, the exposure of healthy children to radiographic assessment has been approached with caution in recent years resulting in few contemporary studies of skeletal maturation and there remains a paucity of data to indicate which biological and environmental factors predict advancement or delay in skeletal maturity and at what stage of development they exert their influence on maturation.…”