Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the developmental tests Bayley-III and Bayley-II in 7-month-old infants born preterm

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study aims on comparing Bayley Scales of infant development third (Bayley-III) and Bayley second (Bayley-II) edition with special focus on patterns in the first year of life. Fifty-five premature infants (43 with low birth weight/LBW >1,499 g and 12 with very/extremely low birth weight/VLBW/ELBW <1,500 g) aged 7 months (corrected for prematurity) were assessed with the complete Bayley-III. From this assessment, Bayley-II results were retrospectively estimated. Bayley-III results were compared to the expected mean with one-sample t-tests. The mean scores of both editions were compared with the aid of paired-sample t-tests. Pearson correlations between subscales and editions were analysed. The Bayley-III cognitive score of the study group was significantly higher than the expected mean of the standardization sample. VLBW/ELBW had significantly lower motor scores than LBW in both editions. When compared to estimated Bayley-II scores, all relevant Bayley-III scores were significantly higher (all p < .01) with highest difference (ten points) between the motor scales of both editions. There were significant correlations not only between Bayley-III cognitive and language scales but also between language and motor scales. Given the strong association between motor and cognitive behaviour in early infancy, this age-specific pattern is heightening the risk of failure to identify infants at risk for both cognitive and motor delay. Therefore, assessment of infants should comprise all subscales. Since Bayley-III probably overestimates especially motor performance in young infants, when interpreting Bayley-III scores in this age, comparison groups are highly recommended until further validation of normative data are outstanding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acton BV, Biggs WS, Creighton DE, Penner KA, Switzer HN, Thomas JH, Joffe AR, Robertson CM (2011) Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after early complex cardiac surgery. Pediatrics 128(4):e794–e800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson PJ, De Luca CR, Hutchinson E, Roberts G, Doyle LW (2010) Underestimation of developmental delay by the new Bayley-III Scale. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164(4):352–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aylward GP, Aylward BS (2011) The changing yardstick in measurement of cognitive abilities in infancy. J Dev Behav Pediatr 32(6):465–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayley N (1993) Manual for the Bayley Scales of infant development, 2nd edn. The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bayley N (2006) Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III), 3rd edn. Harcourt Assessment/Psychological Corporation, San Antonio

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bayley N (2006) Bayley Scales of infant development, 3rd edn: technical manual. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bhutta AT, Cleves MA, Casey PH, Cradock MM, Anand KJ (2002) Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis. JAMA 288(6):728–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Kieviet JF, Piek JP, Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Oosterlaan J (2009) Motor development in very preterm and very low-birth-weight children from birth to adolescence: a meta-analysis. JAMA 302(20):2235–2242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss (2006) Vereinbarung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über Maßnahmen zur Qualitätssicherung der Versorgung von Früh- und Neugeborenen vom 24.11.2006. Bundesanzeiger 221:7050

  10. Einspieler C, Prechtl H, Bos A, Ferrari F, Cioni G (2008) Prechtl's method on the qualitative assessmeent of general movements in preterm, term and young infants. Mac Keith, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Engle WA (2006) A recommendation for the definition of “late preterm” (near-term) and the birth weight–gestational age classification system. Semin Perinatol 30(1):2–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Engle WA, Tomashek KM, Wallman C (2007) “Late-preterm” infants: a population at risk. Pediatrics 120(6):1390–1401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Greene MM, Patra K, Nelson MN, Silvestri JM (2012) Evaluating preterm infants with the Bayley-III: patterns and correlates of development. Res Dev Disabil 33(6):1948–1956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D, Schluchter M, Cartar L, Wilson-Costello D, Klein N, Friedman H, Mercuri-Minich N, Morrow M (2005) Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of infant development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics 116(2):333–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harris SR, Megens AM, Backman CL, Hayes VE (2005) Stability of the Bayley II Scales of infant development in a sample of low-risk and high-risk infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 47(12):820–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heineman KR, Hadders-Algra M (2008) Evaluation of neuromotor function in infancy—a systematic review of available methods. J Dev Behav Pediatr 29(4):315–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson S, Marlow N (2006) Developmental screen or developmental testing? Early Hum Dev 82(3):173–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson S, Wolke D, Marlow N (2008) Developmental assessment of preterm infants at 2 years: validity of parent reports. Dev Med Child Neurol 50(1):58–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kavšek MJ (2004) Predicting later IQ from infant visual habitation and dishabituation: a meta-analysis. J Appl Dev Psychol 25(3):369–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Long SH, Galea MP, Eldridge BJ, Harris SR (2012) Performance of 2-year-old children after early surgery for congenital heart disease on the Bayley Scales of infant and toddler development, 3rd edn. Early Hum Dev 88(8):603–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lowe JR, Erickson SJ, Schrader R, Duncan AF (2012) Comparison of the Bayley II Mental Developmental Index and the Bayley III Cognitive Scale: are we measuring the same thing? Acta Paediatr 101(2):e55–e58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mercer JS, Vohr BR, Erickson-Owens DA, Padbury JF, Oh W (2010) Seven-month developmental outcomes of very low birth weight infants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of delayed versus immediate cord clamping. J Perinatol 30(1):11–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Moore T, Johnson S, Haider S, Hennessy E, Marlow N (2012) Relationship between test scores using the second and third editions of the Bayley scales in extremely preterm children. J Pediatr 160(4):553–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Msall ME (2010) The Bayley-III Scale underestimates developmental delay in extremely premature and extremely low birth weight infants. J Pediatr 157(5):863–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Msall ME (2010) Measuring outcomes after extreme prematurity with the Bayley-III Scales of infant and toddler development: a cautionary tale from Australia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164(4):391–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reuner G, Rosenkranz J, Pietz J, Horn R (2008) Bayley Scales of infant development, 2nd edn - Deutsche Fassung - 2. korrigierte Auflage. Pearson Assessment & Information GmbH, Frankfurt am Main

  27. Romeo DM, Di Stefano A, Conversano M, Ricci D, Mazzone D, Romeo MG, Mercuri E (2010) Neurodevelopmental outcome at 12 and 18 months in late preterm infants. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology: EJPN: official journal of the European Paediatric Neurology Society 14(6):503–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Soto CB, Olude O, Hoffmann RG, Bear L, Chin A, Dasgupta M, Mussatto K (2011) Implementation of a routine developmental follow-up program for children with congenital heart disease: early results. Congenit Hear Dis 6(5):451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Steenis L, Verhoeven M, Van Baar A (2012) The development of the Dutch version of the Bayley III: the Bayley-III-NL. Paper presented at the XVIII Biennal International Conference of Infant Studies, Minneapolis, June 7–9, 2012

  30. Vohr BR, Stephens BE, Higgins RD, Bann CM, Hintz SR, Das A, Newman JE, Peralta-Carcelen M, Yolton K, Dusick AM, Evans PW, Goldstein RF, Ehrenkranz RA, Pappas A, Adams-Chapman I, Wilson-Costello DE, Bauer CR, Bodnar A, Heyne RJ, Vaucher YE, Dillard RG, Acarregui MJ, McGowan EC, Myers GJ, Fuller J (2012) Are outcomes of extremely preterm infants improving? Impact of Bayley assessment on outcomes. J Pediatr 161(2):222–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Voigt B, Pietz J, Pauen S, Kliegel M, Reuner G (2012) Cognitive development in very vs. moderately to late preterm and full-term children: can effortful control account for group differences in toddlerhood? Early Hum Dev 88(5):307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wood NS, Costeloe K, Gibson AT, Hennessy EM, Marlow N, Wilkinson AR (2005) The EPICure study: associations and antecedents of neurological and developmental disability at 30 months of age following extremely preterm birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 90(2):F134–F140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Gitta Reuner, Anna Christine Fields, and Martin Löpprich received a grant by the Dietmar Hopp Stiftung in the context of the broader study on early developmental diagnostic tools. Andrea Wittke received financial support from a German national doctoral fellowship by the Landesgraduiertenförderung of the State of Baden-Württemberg. All assessments were performed at the University Children's Hospital of Heidelberg. The authors gratefully thank the families for participating in this study.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors had conflicts of interests relevant to the content of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuropediatrics, University Children’s Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 430, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Gitta Reuner, Anna Christine Fields, Andrea Wittke & Joachim Pietz

  2. Department of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Martin Löpprich

Authors
  1. Gitta Reuner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Christine Fields
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Wittke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Löpprich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joachim Pietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gitta Reuner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reuner, G., Fields, A.C., Wittke, A. et al. Comparison of the developmental tests Bayley-III and Bayley-II in 7-month-old infants born preterm. Eur J Pediatr 172, 393–400 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-012-1902-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-012-1902-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation