Academic achievement varies with gestational age among children born at term

Kimberly G Noble, William P Fifer, Virginia A Rauh, Yoko Nomura, Howard F Andrews, Kimberly G Noble, William P Fifer, Virginia A Rauh, Yoko Nomura, Howard F Andrews

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to examine the degree to which children born within the "normal term" range of 37 to 41 weeks' gestation vary in terms of school achievement.

Methods: This study analyzed data from 128050 singleton births born between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation in a large US city. Data were extracted from city birth records to assess a number of obstetric, social, and economic variables, at both the individual and community levels. Birth data were then matched with public school records of standardized city-wide third-grade reading and math tests. Specifically, we assessed (1) whether children born within the normal term range of 37 to 41 weeks' gestation show differences in reading and/or math ability 8 years later as a function of gestational age, and (2) the degree to which a wide range of individual- and community-level social and biological factors mediate this effect.

Results: Analyses revealed that gestational age within the normal term range was significantly and positively related to reading and math scores in third grade, with achievement scores for children born at 37 and 38 weeks significantly lower than those for children born at 39, 40, or 41 weeks. This effect was independent of birth weight, as well as a number of other obstetric, social, and economic factors.

Conclusions: Earlier normal term birth may be a characteristic considered by researchers, clinicians, and parents to help identify children who may be at risk for poorer school performance.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Gestational week at birth was significantly and positively associated with reading score: (F [4, 128 045] = 21.635; P < 7.2 × 10–18). Error bars represent ±1 SE.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Gestational week at birth was significantly and positively associated with math score: (F [4, 127 527] = 27.904; P < 3.4 × 10–23). Error bars represent ±1 SE.

References

    1. van Baar AL, Vermaas J, Knots E, de Kleine MJ, Soons P. Functioning at school age of moderately preterm children born at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):251–257
    1. Eide MG, Oyen N, Skjaerven R, Bjerkedal T. Associations of birth size, gestational age, and adult size with intellectual performance: evidence from a cohort of Norwegian men. Pediatr Res. 2007;62(5):636–642
    1. Petrini JR, Dias T, McCormick MC, Massolo ML, Green NS, Escobar GJ. Increased risk of adverse neurological development for late preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2009;154(2):169–176
    1. Morse SB, Zheng H, Tang Y, Roth J. Early school-age outcomes of late preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2009;123(4). Available at: .
    1. Baron IS, Erickson K, Ahronovich MD, Coulehan K, Baker R, Litman FR. Visuospatial and verbal fluency relative deficits in ‘complicated’ late-preterm preschool children. Early Hum Dev. 2009;85(12):751–754
    1. Chyi LJ, Lee HC, Hintz SR, Gould JB, Sutcliffe TL. School outcomes of late preterm infants: special needs and challenges for infants born at 32 to 36 weeks gestation. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):25–31
    1. Kirkegaard I, Obel C, Hedegaard M, Henriksen TB. Gestational age and birth weight in relation to school performance of 10-year-old children: a follow-up study of children born after 32 completed weeks. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1600–1606
    1. Moster D, Lie RT, Markestad T. Long-term medical and social consequences of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(3):262–273
    1. Linnet KM, Wisborg K, Agerbo E, Secher NJ, Thomsen PH, Henriksen TB. Gestational age, birth weight, and the risk of hyperkinetic disorder. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91(8):655–660
    1. Hüppi PS, Warfield S, Kikinis R, et al. . Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of brain development in premature and mature newborns. Ann Neurol. 1998;43(2):224–235
    1. Adams-Chapman I. Neurodevelopmental outcome of the late preterm infant. Clin Perinatol. 2006;33(4):947–964, abstract xi
    1. Kirby RS, Wingate MS. Late preterm birth and neonatal outcome: is 37 weeks’ gestation a threshold level or a road marker on the highway of perinatal risk? Birth. 2010;37(2):169–171
    1. Santos IS, Matijasevich A, Domingues MR, Barros AJ, Victora CG, Barros FC. Late preterm birth is a risk factor for growth faltering in early childhood: a cohort study. BMC Pediatr. 2009;9:71.
    1. Gurka MJ, LoCasale-Crouch J, Blackman JA. Long-term cognition, achievement, socioemotional, and behavioral development of healthy late-preterm infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(6):525–532
    1. Rauh VA, Parker FL, Garfinkel RS, Perry J, Andrews HF. Biological, social, and community influences on third-grade reading levels of minority Head Start children: a multilevel approach. J Community Psychol. 2003;31(3):255–278
    1. Andrews H, Goldberg D, Wellen N, Pittman B, Struening E. Prediction of special education placement from birth certificate data. Am J Prev Med. 1995;11(suppl 3):55–61
    1. Board of Education of the City of New York. New Standards. Performance Standards for English Language Arts. Assessment based on standards. 1997. Available at: . 2011. Accessed December 20, 2011
    1. Frequently asked questions. In: TerraNova, The Second Edition: California achievement tests. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill; 2000
    1. Goldberg D, McLaughlin M, Grossi M, Tytun A, Blum S. Which newborns in New York City are at risk for special education placement? Am J Public Health. 1992;82(3):438–440
    1. Talge NM, Holzman C, Wang J, Lucia V, Gardiner J, Breslau N. Late-preterm birth and its association with cognitive and socioemotional outcomes at 6 years of age. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1124–1131
    1. Raju TN. The problem of late-preterm (near-term) births: a workshop summary. Pediatr Res. 2006;60(6):775–776
    1. Yang S, Platt RW, Kramer MS. Variation in child cognitive ability by week of gestation among healthy term births. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(4):399–406
    1. Schofield TJ, Martin MJ, Conger KJ, Neppl TM, Donnellan MB, Conger RD. Intergenerational transmission of adaptive functioning: a test of the interactionist model of SES and human development. Child Dev. 2011;82(1):33–47
    1. Yang S, Bergvall N, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS. Gestational age differences in health and development among young Swedish men born at term. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(5):1240–1249
    1. Davis EP, Buss C, Muftuler LT, et al. . Children's brain development benefits from longer gestation. Front Psychol. 2011;2:1–7
    1. McCandliss BD, Noble KG. The development of reading impairment: a cognitive neuroscience model. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003;9(3):196–204
    1. Dehaene S, Spelke E, Pinel P, Stanescu R, Tsivkin S. Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science. 1999;284(5416):970–974
    1. Damus K. Prevention of preterm birth: a renewed national priority. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20(6):590–596
    1. Gould JB, Chavez G, Marks AR, Liu H. Incomplete birth certificates: a risk marker for infant mortality. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(1):79–81
    1. Buescher PA, Taylor KP, Davis MH, Bowling JM. The quality of the new birth certificate data: a validation study in North Carolina. Am J Public Health. 1993;83(8):1163–1165
    1. Reichman NE, Hade EM. Validation of birth certificate data. A study of women in New Jersey’s HealthStart program. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11(3):186–193

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit