W G Sciarillo | PubMed Health

PubMed1992

Lead exposure and child behavior.

OBJECTIVES: Unlike cognitive impairments associated with lead exposure, lead-associated child behavior problems have been difficult to specify, particularly in young children. METHODS: The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale were used as the outcome and confounding variables, respectively, of major interest. These measures were examined with respect to blood lead levels of 201 African-American children aged 2 through 5 years. RESULTS: In comparison with the low exposed group, the high exposed group (two consecutive blood lead levels greater than or equal to 15 micrograms/dL) had a significantly higher mean CBCL Total Behavior Problem Score (TBPS) and Internalizing and Externalizing scores; when other factors, including maternal depressive symptomatology, were controlled for, regression procedures indicated a .18-point TBPS increase for each unit increase in lead and a 5.1-point higher TBPS in the high exposed group; children in this group were 2.7 times more likely to have a TBPS in the clinical range. CONCLUSIONS: Through its use of a standardized parent-report measure of behavior and its consideration of maternal morale in multiple linear and logistic regression procedures, this study provides further evidence of lead's detrimental effect on child behavior at levels typical of present-day exposure.

Academies and Institutes↗

PubMed1986

Effectiveness of the Denver Developmental Screening Test with biologically vulnerable infants.

The Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) was initially developed specifically to identify children with mental retardation. However, its use in screening low birth weight and other biologically at-risk infants for motor problems is widespread. In view of the absence of biologically vulnerable children in the DDST standardization sample, and the limited validational support available for its use with children under 30 months of age, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the DDST in screening 62 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit graduates during infancy. Categorical results (Normal, Questionable, Abnormal), obtained in the home setting by DDST, were compared with results of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Follow-up Clinic evaluations. There was a marked underselection of the DDST's categorical results in identifying those infants with suspect or abnormal findings on the more detailed clinic evaluations. However, the effectiveness of the screeners' clinical impression ratings (based on observations made during administration of the DDST) in identifying infants with positive criterion results was encouraging. These findings suggest that, although the DDST's categorical results may be of limited value in screening biologically vulnerable infants, administration of the DDST may provide a useful framework for more systematically observing and documenting significant qualitative aspects of an infant's developmental status, particularly for the screener who is less experienced in neuromotor assessment. These observations need to be defined further, and validated.

Developmental Disabilities↗