Parents of preterm, very low birthweight (VLBW <1,500 grams) babies are often uncertain about the relative merits (versus risks) of preschool experience for their infant. To examine this issue, the academic and social functioning at age seven, of 74 VLBW infants who had attended an informal preschool setting was compared to that of 42 VLBW nonattenders of equivalent neonatal medical severity and family milieu, as well as to that of 154 normal birthweight children (NBW > 2,500 grams) of similar background. VLBW attenders scored significantly higher than VLBW nonattenders on the cognitive measures of Mean School Performance, Works Hard, and Learns a Lot (Teacher Report Form-Achenbach, 1991), and also on Cognitive Competence (Teacher's Rating Scale-Harter & Pike, 1984), In the case of girls, but not boys, attenders also had lower social nonparticipation scores than nonattenders on the Selective Classmate Evaluation Procedure (Hoy, Sykes, Bill, Halliday, McClure, & McReid, 1992) completed by classmates. While attenders still scored less optimally than the NEW group, their better scores suggest the need to examine prospectively whether exposing VLBW toddlers to child-paced preschool experience prior to more formal teaching may encourage their openness to new experience and learning.

The school-based behavioural adjustment at 7-8 years of a cohort of 243 prematurely born, very low birthweight (< 1501 g) children and their normal birthweight controls is reported. The findings indicate that the children born preterm (both male and female) were rated by their teachers as expressing more behaviour problems than their controls, and were less well adjusted to the school environment. The deficits noted in the preterms applied across the social classes, with no amelioration noted in preterms of higher social class. It is speculated that the problem behaviours reflect a failure in self-regulatory functions.

Whether very-low birthweight (VLBW ≤1500 gm) children differ from normal birthweight (NBW > 2500gm) children with respect to social (as opposed to intellectual) competence has been a relatively neglected issue. The social competence at school age of 183 VLBW children was therefore compared with that of 183 NBW children born at the same hospital matched for age, gender, social class, parity, and maternal age. A multi-informant, multidefinilional approach to social competence was adopted involving teacher, (same-gender) peer, and self-ratings of the 366 children's levels of social maladjustment, social skill, and peer acceptance. VLBW children from the upper, middle, and lower social classes received significantly higher mean sadness/unhappiness scores (even with IQ covaried) than their NEW counterparts. Mean scores for the VLBW group were also higher for social withdrawal, and lower for both social skill and peer acceptance. Possible antecedents and consequences of such group differences in affect and sociability are suggested.

Whether very-low-birthweight (VLBW ≤1,500 g) children differ from normal birthweight (NBW ≥2,500 g) children with respect to long-term outcome continues to be a controversial issue. Preliminary findings are reported from the interdisciplinary Northern Ireland Very-Low-Birlhweight Project, which compared medical, cognitive, behavioural and social outcomes at school age in samples of VLBW and NBW infants (n=221 per group) matched for age, gender, social class, maternal age and parity. All infants were born in or treated in the Royal Maternity Hospital, Blfast during the years 1978–1981. As compared to the NBW group, the VLBW children from all social classes were found to score more poorly across all areas investigated. These differences, although not representing gross abnormalities, nonetheless were statistically significant and represented considerable dysfunctioning across a range of abilities relevant to later adult adjustment. Possible mechanisms common to all outcome areas and to all social classes which may produce such differences are discussed, and the need for future detailed prospective studies of their exact mode of action is advocated.

Research with very low birthweight (VLBW) infants (≤isoog) may be broadly categorised into product and process studies. Recent product-oriented outcome studies are reviewed from the perspective of whether VLBW infants born since 1975 (when intensive care methods became relatively stabilised in effectiveness) show behavioural problems, intellectual impairment, linguistic or social deficits. Process studies examining cognitive, social and contextual variables, differentiating VLBW and normal birthweight infants, and thought to compromise long-term outcome are then discussed. It is argued, in the light of the conflicting evidence, that future studies need to: (1) exert greater control over the medical and psychological variables confounded with low birthweight, including the variable of social class; (2) study outcome from a life-span perspective, examining the possibility of an intergenerational cycle for at least some families; and; (3) incorporate both systems-oriented and transactional models into their designs, for the purpose not only of predicting outcome, but also ultimately for providing the most appropriate types of support for these infants.

Developmental Medicine & Child NeurologyVolume 28, Issue 2 p. 244-247 Difficulties in Comparing Outcomes of Low-birthweight Studies because of Obsolescent Test Norms JOHN M. BILL, *Department of Education, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 lNN, Northern IrelandSearch for more papers by this authorDONALD H. SYKES, †Department of Psychology, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 lNN, Northern IrelandSearch for more papers by this authorELIZ. A. HOY, †Department of Psychology, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 lNN, Northern IrelandSearch for more papers by this author JOHN M. BILL, *Department of Education, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 lNN, Northern IrelandSearch for more papers by this authorDONALD H. SYKES, †Department of Psychology, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 lNN, Northern IrelandSearch for more papers by this authorELIZ. A. HOY, †Department of Psychology, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 lNN, Northern IrelandSearch for more papers by this author First published: April 1986 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1986.tb03861.xCitations: 16AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume28, Issue2April 1986Pages 244-247 RelatedInformation