Peter J Anderson1,2, Alice Burnett1,2,3. 1. a Clinical Sciences , Murdoch Childrens Research Institute , Melbourne , Australia. 2. b Department of Paediatrics , The University of Melbourne , Melbourne , Australia. 3. c Neonatal Medicine , Royal Children's Hospital , Melbourne , Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early detection of children with developmental delay is crucial for determining which children require close surveillance and intervention services. For many decades, the Bayley Scales has been the most widely used objective measure of early developmental delay, both in clinical and research settings. Significant structural changes were incorporated in the most recent edition, the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III). This article reviews the psychometric properties of the Bayley-III and investigates criticisms raised on the Bayley-III, namely that it overestimates developmental status and is a poor predictor of later functioning. METHOD: This critical review examines the literature on the Bayley-III, which was released in 2006. RESULTS: The Cognitive, Language, and Motor composites of the Bayley-III overestimate development, resulting in an under-identification of children with developmental delay. A range of strategies have been proposed for dealing with the inflated scores on the Bayley-III, none of which are ideal. Evidence to date suggests that the Bayley-III is a poor predictor of later cognitive and motor impairments. CONCLUSIONS: The Bayley-III needs new norms, or alternatively, it may be time for a new edition of the Bayley Scales.
OBJECTIVE: Early detection of children with developmental delay is crucial for determining which children require close surveillance and intervention services. For many decades, the Bayley Scales has been the most widely used objective measure of early developmental delay, both in clinical and research settings. Significant structural changes were incorporated in the most recent edition, the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III). This article reviews the psychometric properties of the Bayley-III and investigates criticisms raised on the Bayley-III, namely that it overestimates developmental status and is a poor predictor of later functioning. METHOD: This critical review examines the literature on the Bayley-III, which was released in 2006. RESULTS: The Cognitive, Language, and Motor composites of the Bayley-III overestimate development, resulting in an under-identification of children with developmental delay. A range of strategies have been proposed for dealing with the inflated scores on the Bayley-III, none of which are ideal. Evidence to date suggests that the Bayley-III is a poor predictor of later cognitive and motor impairments. CONCLUSIONS: The Bayley-III needs new norms, or alternatively, it may be time for a new edition of the Bayley Scales.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bayley Scales; Early childhood; developmental delay; infancy
Authors: Alexander H Sun; Jeffrey Eilbott; Carolyn Chuang; Jenny F Yang; Eric D Brooks; Joel Beckett; Derek M Steinbacher; Kevin Pelphrey; John A Persing Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Theresa J Ochoa; Jaime Zegarra; Sicilia Bellomo; Cesar P Carcamo; Luis Cam; Anne Castañeda; Aasith Villavicencio; Jorge Gonzales; Maria S Rueda; Christie G Turin; Alonso Zea-Vera; Daniel Guillen; Miguel Campos; Linda Ewing-Cobbs Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Kelsey L C Dzwilewski; Francheska M Merced-Nieves; Andrea Aguiar; Susan A Korrick; Susan L Schantz Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Suelen Rosa de Oliveira; Ana Carolina Cabral de Paula Machado; Jonas Jardim de Paula; Paulo Henrique Paiva de Moraes; Maria Juliana Silvério Nahin; Lívia de Castro Magalhães; Sergio L Novi; Rickson C Mesquita; Débora Marques de Miranda; Maria Cândida Ferrarez Bouzada Journal: Neurophotonics Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 3.593
Authors: Brittany Blouin; Martin Casapía; Lawrence Joseph; Jay S Kaufman; Charles Larson; Theresa W Gyorkos Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Elisabeth C McGowan; Abbot R Laptook; Jean Lowe; Myriam Peralta-Carcelen; Dhuly Chowdhury; Rosemary D Higgins; Susan R Hintz; Betty R Vohr Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Ashwini Lakshmanan; Ashley Y Song; Nicole Flores-Fenlon; Urvashi Parti; Douglas L Vanderbilt; Philippe S Friedlich; Roberta Williams; Michele Kipke Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: Francheska M Merced-Nieves; Kelsey L C Dzwilewski; Andrea Aguiar; Jue Lin; Susan L Schantz Journal: Dev Psychobiol Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 3.038