| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 181.85 KB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the association between receptive vocabulary performance and
intellectual quotient (IQ) in preterm born children compared to children born at term.
Method: A total of 72 preschool-age children participated in the study. Participants were divided in four groups:
EG-I, including 20 moderate to late preterm born children; EG-II, comprehending 16 extremely preterm born
children; CG-I and CG-II with correspondingly 20 and 16 children born at term. EG-I and CG-I as well as EG-II
and CG-II groupswere matched according to gender, chronological age, and family SES. The mean age of children
in each group was: EG-I and CG-I: 30.3 months; EG-II and CG-II: 29.1 months. The assessment information was
collected using an anamnesis protocol, the Brazilian criterion of economic classification, the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test, and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.
Results: Mean scores for receptive vocabulary were significantly lower in both preterm groups (EG-I and EG-II)
than in the corresponding matched groups (CG-I and CG-II). However, no significant differences were found
among the preterm groups. Moreover, high correlations between vocabulary and IQ scores were found in both
preterm groups (EG-I and EG-II). In contrast, no significant correlations were found when analyses considered
each group of full-term born children (CG-I and CG-II).
Conclusion: Our findings indicate that prematurity status has an impact on receptive language performance and
on the pattern of relationships between receptive vocabulary and general intellectual functioning.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Preterm Child development IQ Vocabulary Child language
Contexto Educativo
Citação
Ribeiro, C. da Costa, Abramides, D. V. M., Fuertes, M. G., Lopes dos Santos, P. N., & Lamônica, D. A. C. (2016). Receptive language and intellectual abilities in preterm children. Early Human Development, 99, 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.03.011
Editora
Elsevier