Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Counterbalanced Comparison of the BSID-II and Bayley-III at Eighteen to Twenty-two Months Corrected Age.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in developmental assessments using the current version of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley-III) as compared to the older BSID-II. Previous studies suggest that average scores on the Bayley-III may be significantly higher than scores on the previous version, but the magnitude and potential impact of differences between these 2 assessments are uncertain.

METHODS: We enrolled 77 former preterm infants (born <32 wk gestation and ≤2000 g) at 18 to 22 months corrected age in this randomized crossover study. The Bayley-III was administered in follow-up clinic per standard of care. The BSID-II was administered during a separate study visit. The order of testing was randomly assigned. The assessments were performed 4 to 8 weeks apart by masked personnel. The main outcomes were mean difference between BSID-II Mental Development Index (MDI) and Bayley-III Cognitive Composite score, mean difference between BSID-II Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) and Bayley-III Motor Composite score, and difference in the proportion of infants classified as having "developmental delay."

RESULTS: Bayley-III scores were significantly higher across the range of scores and in all domains. Mean Cognitive Composite scores were almost 1 SD higher than MDI scores (14.1 ± 12.9 points, p < .001). Mean Motor Composite scores were 9.0 ± 11.9 points higher than PDI scores (p < .001). When severity of delay was classified using standardized cut-points for moderate and severe developmental delay (1 and 2 SDs below reference norm), 40% of children (n = 31/77) were classified as less severely delayed with the Bayley-III Cognitive Composite score than with the BSID-II MDI, whereas only 1 (<2%) was classified as more severely delayed with the Bayley-III (p < .001).

CONCLUSION: These findings have critical implications for both the interpretation of clinical research studies and determination of eligibility for services in high-risk children.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app