| Literature DB >> 21713506 |
Sylvana C C Robbers1, Floor V A van Oort, Tinca J C Polderman, Meike Bartels, Dorret I Boomsma, Frank C Verhulst, Gitta H Lubke, Anja C Huizink.
Abstract
The first aim of this study was to identify developmental trajectories of Attention Problems in twins followed from age 6 to 12 years. Second, we investigated whether singletons follow similar trajectories. Maternal longitudinal ratings on the Attention Problems (AP) subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist were obtained for a sample of 12,486 twins from the Netherlands Twin Register and for a general population sample of 1,346 singletons. Trajectories were analyzed by growth mixture modeling in twins, and compared with singletons. Teacher ratings on the AP subscale of the Teachers' Report Form were available for 7,179 twins and 1,211 singletons, and were used for cross-sectional mean comparisons at each age. All analyses were conducted for boys and girls separately. We identified three linear trajectories in both boys and girls, i.e., stable low (62-71%), low-increasing (15-18%), and high-decreasing (14-21%). Singletons followed three identical trajectories, with similar class proportions. Teacher ratings yielded no differences in mean levels of Attention Problems between twins and singletons. The development of Attention Problems from age 6 to 12 years can be characterized by stable low, low-increasing, and high-decreasing developmental trajectories. Twins and singletons are comparable with respect to the development of Attention Problems in childhood.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21713506 PMCID: PMC3141842 DOI: 10.1007/s00787-011-0194-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry ISSN: 1018-8827 Impact factor: 4.785
Growth mixture modeling model fit statistics for twins
| Classes | Linear | Quadratic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BIC | LMR-LRT | BIC | LMR-LRT | |
| Boys | ||||
| 1 | 55,243.60 | n.a. | 55,235.58 | n.a. |
| 2 | 54,091.14 | <0.001 | 54,069.46 | <0.001 |
| 3 | 53,449.35 | <0.001 | 53,409.63 | <0.001 |
| 4 | 53,261.68 | 0.06 | 53,210.41 | 0.18 |
| Girls | ||||
| 1 | 52,874.79 | n.a. | 52,880.37 | n.a. |
| 2 | 51,421.16 | <0.001 | 51,425.08 | <0.001 |
| 3 | 50,875.96 | 0.02 | 50,895.03 | 0.22 |
| 4 | 50,345.62 | 0.10 | 50,323.00 | 0.11 |
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion, LMR-LRT represents the p value of the Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test [22], which was included for comparison, n.a. not applicable
Intercept factor variances are equal across classes, slope factor variances are fixed to zero
Model results for the three-class linear model for twins and singletons
| Twins | Singletons | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Est | SE |
| Est | SE |
| |
| Boys | ||||||
| Class#1: stable low | ||||||
| I | 2.06 | 0.10 | <0.001 | 1.97 | 0.20 | <0.001 |
| S | −0.03 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.34 |
| Class#2: low-increasing | ||||||
| I | 4.04 | 0.19 | <0.001 | 3.39 | 0.74 | 0.001 |
| S | 0.83 | 0.14 | <0.001 | 0.92 | 0.14 | <0.001 |
| Class#3: high-decreasing | ||||||
| I | 8.85 | 0.52 | <0.001 | 8.56 | 0.93 | <0.001 |
| S | −0.80 | 0.10 | <0.001 | −0.56 | 0.13 | 0.002 |
| Girls | ||||||
| Class#1: stable low | ||||||
| I | 1.13 | 0.08 | <0.001 | 1.09 | 0.13 | <0.001 |
| S | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.49 |
| Class#2: low-increasing | ||||||
| I | 2.66 | 0.19 | <0.001 | 2.09 | 0.49 | <0.001 |
| S | 0.59 | 0.14 | <0.001 | 0.71 | 0.20 | <0.001 |
| Class#3: high-decreasing | ||||||
| I | 6.43 | 0.34 | <0.001 | 6.97 | 1.19 | <0.001 |
| S | −0.60 | 0.07 | <0.001 | −0.48 | 0.11 | <0.001 |
BIC boys 63,945.99, BIC girls 60,683.19, I intercept, S linear slope, Est estimated mean, SE standard error, p value significance of intercept and slope means, Intercept variances are freely estimated, slope variances are fixed to zero
Fig. 1Trajectories of mother-rated Attention Problems for boys
Fig. 2Trajectories of mother-rated Attention Problems for girls
Estimated means for teacher-rated Attention Problems corrected for SES
| Age | Twins | Singletons | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | SE |
| Mean | SE | |
| Boys | ||||||
| 6 | 49 | 7.43 | 1.30 | 58 | 6.06 | 1.06 |
| 7 | 1,673 | 6.34 | 0.21 | 57 | 7.79 | 0.89 |
| 8 | 177 | 7.53 | 0.59 | 100 | 5.72 | 0.74 |
| 9 | 552 | 7.05 | 0.37 | 114 | 8.09 | 0.69 |
| 10 | 1,053 | 7.17 | 0.28 | 154 | 7.14 | 0.56 |
| 11 | 367 | 6.62 | 0.44 | 168 | 7.22 | 0.59 |
| 12 | 748 | 6.09 | 0.32 | 194 | 6.91 | 0.51 |
| Girls | ||||||
| 6 | 46 | 3.71 | 0.77 | 67 | 2.60 | 0.61 |
| 7 | 1,699 | 3.84 | 0.16 | 71 | 3.35 | 0.61 |
| 8 | 177 | 4.42 | 0.55 | 92 | 4.17 | 0.67 |
| 9 | 641 | 4.00 | 0.27 | 133 | 3.63 | 0.48 |
| 10 | 1,045 | 4.02 | 0.22 | 159 | 4.17 | 0.42 |
| 11 | 404 | 3.76 | 0.34 | 200 | 4.68 | 0.41 |
| 12 | 778 | 3.23 | 0.21 | 199 | 4.55 | 0.34* |
Due to the longitudinal design, the N’s do not add up to the total number of children
N number of observations, SE standard error
* Significant twin-singleton mean difference (p < 0.001)