Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Type: Thesis
Title: Differences identified when correcting scores of preterm children: consequences for service access
Author: Fuss, Belinda
Issue Date: 2016
School/Discipline: School of Psychology
Abstract: When chronological age is used for age-standardised developmental tests, preterm children often perform worse than when age corrected for time born preterm is used. This difference reduces as children develop, however it is unclear when it becomes insignificant, leaving practice of age-correction largely up to clinician discretion. The present study contributes to questions surrounding whether age-correction should be used when evaluating children born preterm. To investigate whether a difference existed at two time points (ages 18 months and 7 years), the current study considered the DQ (Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Second Edition) and IQ (Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence) scores of 577 (305 male, 526 Caucasian) preterm children. Means of scores standardised for chronological and corrected age were compared. Impairment was indicated based on standardised scores, and frequency of indicated impairment was compared. Statistically and clinically significant differences were seen (Cohen’s d = 1.24 and 0.15, and changes of 13.9% and 6.9%, respectively) at both age points. Findings indicate that in research, age-correction should be used to eliminate bias. In clinical practice, categorisation as at-risk for impairment and subsequent referral to services can depend on the use of age-correction. To maximise access to services, clinicians should therefore not correct.
Dissertation Note: Thesis (B.Sc.(Hons)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 2016
Keywords: Honours; Psychology
Description: This item is only available electronically.
Provenance: This electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the author of this thesis and do not wish it to be made publicly available, or you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at:
Appears in Collections:School of Psychology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
01frontPsychHon.pdf356.52 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.