Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Use of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire and Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II in neurodevelopmental follow-up of extremely low birth weight infants

Journal of Perinatology volume 31, pages 641–646 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

For infants born with extremely low birth weight (ELBW), we examined the (1) correlation between results on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II (BSID-II) at 18 to 22 months corrected age; (2) degree to which earlier ASQ assessments predict later BSID-II results; (3) impact of ASQ use on follow-up study return rates.

Study Design:

ASQ data were collected at 4, 8, 12 and 18 to 22 months corrected age. The BSID-II was completed at 18 to 22 months corrected age. ASQ and BSID-II 18 to 22 month sensitivity and specificity were examined. Ability of earlier ASQs to predict later BSID-II scores was examined through linear regression analyses.

Result:

ASQ sensitivity and specificity at 18 to 22 months were 73 and 65%, respectively. Moderate correlation existed between earlier ASQ and later BSID-II results.

Conclusion:

For extremely low birth weight infant assessment, the ASQ cannot substitute for the BSID-II, but seems to improve tracking success.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vohr BR, Wright LL, Dusick AM, Mele L, Verter J, Steichen JJ et al. Neurodevelopmental and functional outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants in national institute of child health and human development neonatal research network, 1993-1994. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 1216–1225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ohls RK, Ehrenkranz RA, Das A, Dusick AM, Yolton K, Romano E et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome and growth at 18-22 months corrected age in extremely low birth weight infants treated with early erythropoietin and iron. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 1287–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Watterberg KL, Shaffer ML, Mishefske MJ, Leach CL, Mammel MC, Couser RJ et al. Growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes after early low-dose hydrocortisone treatment in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2007; 120: 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hille ET, Elbertse L, Grovenhorst JB, Brand R, Verloove-Vanhorickk SP . Nonresponse bias in a follow-up study of 19-year-old adolescents born as preterm infants. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (5): e662–e666.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Aylward GP . Methodological issues in outcome studies of at risk infants. J Pediatr Psychol 2002; 27: 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glascoe FP, Dworkin PH . The role of parents in the detection of developmental and behavioral problems. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 829–836.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glascoe FP . Parents’ concerns about children's development: prescreening technique or screening test? Pediatrics 1997; 99: 522–528.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Diamond KE, Squires JK . The role of parental report in the screening and assessment of young children. J Early Interv 1993; 17: 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Squires J, Bricker D . Impact of completing infant developmental questionnaires on at-risk mothers. J Early Interv 1991; 15 (2): 162–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim M, O’Connor K, McLean J, Robson A, Chance G . Do parents and professionals agree on the developmental status of high-risk infants? Pediatrics 1996; 97: 676–681.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klamer A, Lando A, Pinborg A, Greisen G . Ages and Stages Questionnaire used to measure cognitive deficit in children born extremely preterm. Acta Paediatr 2005; 94: 1327–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Plomgaard AM, Hansen BM, Greisen G . Measuring developmental deficit in children born at gestational age less than 26 weeks using a parent-completed developmental questionnaire. Acta Paediatr 2006; 95: 1488–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Skellern C, Rogers Y, O’Callaghan MJ . A parent-completed developmental questionnaire: follow up of ex-premature infants. J Paediatr Child Health 2001; 37: 125–129.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Watterberg KL, Gerdes JS, Cole CH, Aucott SW, Thilo EH, Mammel MC et al. Prophylaxis of early adrenal insufficiency to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a multicenter trial. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 1649–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bayley N . Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd edn. The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bricker D, Squires J . Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ): A Parent-Completed, Child Monitoring System, 2nd edn. Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, MD, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Glascoe FP . Standards for screening test construction. 2004. Available at: www.dbpeds.org. Accessed 05/04/09.

  18. Aylward GP, Gustafson N, Verhulst SJ, Colliver JA . Consistency in the diagnosis of cognitive, motor, and neurologic function over the first three years. J Pediatr Psychol 1987; 12: 77–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McGrath E, Wypij D, Rappaport LA, Newburger JW, Bellinger DC . Prediction of IQ and achievement at age 8 years from neurodevelopmental status at age 1 year in children with D-Transposition of the great arteries. Pediatrics 2004; 114: e572–e576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D, Schluchter M, Cartar L, Wilson-Costello D et al. Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Roberts G, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW . The stability of the diagnosis of developmental disability between ages 2 and 8 in a geographic cohort of very preterm children born in 1997. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95 (10): 786–790.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Squires J, Bricker D . Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edn. (ASQ-3TM) Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, MD, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bayley N . Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd edn. PsychCorp, Harcourt Assessment, Inc.: San Antonio, TX, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bayley N . Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd edn., Technical Manual PsychCorp, Harcourt Assessment, Inc.: San Antonio, TX, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Anderson PJ, De Luca CR, Hutchinson E, Roberts G, Doyle LW . Underestimation of developmental delay by the new Bayley-III Scale. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164 (4).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted at the University of New Mexico, State University of New York at Buffalo, University of Colorado, Johns Hopkins University, St Joseph Regional Medical Center of Milwaukee, Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minneapolis and St Paul, MN, Tufts University, University of Pennsylvania, and Virginia Commonwealth University. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01—HD38540) and grants from the General Clinical Research Centers Programs at the University of New Mexico (MO1 RROOO54), Tufts-New England Medical Center (5MO1 RROO997), and the University of Colorado (MO1-RROOO69).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Children's Hospital of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    B J Woodward

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Neonatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    L-A Papile

  3. Division of Neonatology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    J R Lowe, V L Laadt & K L Watterberg

  4. Departments of Public Health Sciences and Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA

    M L Shaffer

  5. General Clinical Research Center, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    R Montman

Authors
  1. B J Woodward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L-A Papile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J R Lowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V L Laadt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M L Shaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R Montman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K L Watterberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B J Woodward.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woodward, B., Papile, LA., Lowe, J. et al. Use of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire and Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II in neurodevelopmental follow-up of extremely low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 31, 641–646 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2011.1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2011.1

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links