Validity and suitability of the Bayley-III Low Motor/Vision version: A comparative study among young children with and without motor and/or visual impairments

Visser, Linda; Ruiter, Selma; Meulen, B.F. Van der; Ruijssenaars, Wied; Timmerman, Marieke E.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.027

Cited by 39 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On a child-by-child basis, it is up to the developmental psychologist to judge which instrument is the most suitable. This recommendation is in accordance with the results of a study into the ''Low Motor/Vision version'' of the Bayley-III-NL, accommodated for children with a motor and/or visual impairment (Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2013). The Low Motor/Vision version also appeared to be suitable for a subgroup of children in the target group, and the advice with respect to that version was similar: the developmental psychologist must judge which version is the most suitable for a specific child.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Low verbal assessment with the Bayley-III

Visser¹,

Ruiter²,

Meulen³

et al. 2015

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the authors have developed the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal for developmental assessment of children with language impairment. The Low Verbal version consists of an accommodated cognition scale, and non-accommodated communication and motor scales. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the validity and added value of the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal for children with a language impairment, in relation to the standard Bayley-III-NL for children without impairment. We administered the Bayley-III Low Verbal to 69 children with language impairment, and the standard Bayley-III-NL to 1132 children without impairments. We used an evaluation form for test administrators and interviews with developmental psychologists to evaluate the suitability of the Low Verbal version for the target group. We analyzed the test results using nonparametric item response theory (IRT) to investigate whether test results can be reasonably compared across the two groups. The results of the IRT analyses support the validity of the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal: the test items do not suffer from differential item functioning (DIF) across the two groups, and thus measure the ability levels of interest in the same way. The results of the evaluation form and interviews confirm that the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal has added value for testing children with a language impairment, especially for children up to 36 months old. It is also suitable for children with general developmental delay. We conclude that the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal can validly assess the cognitive, language, and motor development of young children with a language impairment and is the preferred instrument for this target group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Low verbal assessment with the Bayley-III

Visser¹,

Ruiter²,

Meulen³

et al. 2015

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On a child-by-child basis, it is up to the developmental psychologist to judge which instrument is the most suitable. This recommendation is in accordance with the results of a study into the "Low Motor/Vision version" of the Bayley-III-NL, accommodated for children with a motor and/or visual impairment (Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2013c). The Low Motor/Vision version also appeared to be suitable for a subgroup of children in the target group, and the advice with respect to that version was similar: the developmental psychologist must judge which version is the most suitable for a specific child.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

The Bayley-III-NL Special Needs Addition: A Suitable Developmental Assessment Instrument For Young Children With Special Needs

Visser

2014

J Cogn Educ Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From the SNA-study, we included test data of children who were tested with the standard (n = 136), Low Verbal (LVe; in cases of a speech-/language impairment; n = 66), Low Motor/Vision (LM/LVi; in cases of motor and / or visual impairment; n = 31) or dynamic (n = 58) version of the Bayley-III-NL. Data from tests with the LVe and LM/LVi versions could be included because research results have supported that they are parallel versions to which the standard norms apply (Visser et al, 2013;Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2015). Data from tests with the dynamic version could be included, because it includes a standard Bayley-III assessment.…”

Section: Dd Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The children in the LM/LVi-study were all tested with both the standard and LM/LVi-version. We only included the results on the more valid (Visser et al, 2013) LM/LVi-version, and only if this was administered as first, to prevent an influence of a learning effect.…”

Section: Dd Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference or delay? A comparison of Bayley-III Cognition item scores of young children with and without developmental disabilities

Visser

Vlaskamp²,

Emde

et al. 2017

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "difference or delay paradigm" focuses on the question of whether children with developmental disabilities (DD) develop in a way that is only delayed, compared to typically developing children, or also qualitatively different. The current study aimed to examine whether qualitative differences exist in cognitive development of young children with and without DD on the basis of item scores on the Dutch Bayley-III Cognition scale. Differential item functioning was identified for 15 of the 91 items. The presence of DD was related to a higher number of Guttman errors, hinting at more deviation in the order of skill development. An interaction between group (i.e., with or without DD) and developmental quotient appeared to predict the number of Guttman errors. DD was related to a higher number of Guttman errors for the whole range of developmental quotients; children with DD with a small developmental quotient had the highest number. Combined, the results mean that qualitative differences in development are not to be excluded, especially in cases of severe developmental disabilities. When using the Bayley-III in daily practice, the possibility needs to be taken into account that the instruments' assumption of a fixed order in skill development does not hold.

show abstract

Validity and suitability of the Bayley-III Low Motor/Vision version: A comparative study among young children with and without motor and/or visual impairments

Cited by 39 publications

References 9 publications

Low verbal assessment with the Bayley-III

Low verbal assessment with the Bayley-III

The Bayley-III-NL Special Needs Addition: A Suitable Developmental Assessment Instrument For Young Children With Special Needs

Difference or delay? A comparison of Bayley-III Cognition item scores of young children with and without developmental disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About