4.6 Article

Using the Bayley-III to assess neurodevelopmental delay: which cut-off should be used?

Journal

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 75, Issue 5, Pages 670-674

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2014.10

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council, London, UK
  2. Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres at UCLH/UCL, London, UK
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/J01107X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MR/J01107X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: As the latest edition of the Bayley Scales (Bayley-III) produces higher scores than its predecessor (BSID-II), there is uncertainty about how to classify moderate severe neurodevelopmental delay. We have investigated agreement between classifications of delay made using the BSID-II and Bayley-III. METHODS: BSID-II Mental Development Index (MDI) and Bayley-III cognitive and language scales were administered in 185 extremely preterm (<27 wk) children. A combined Bayley-III score (CB-III) was computed. Agreement between delay classified using MDI scores <70 and various Bayley-III cut-offs was assessed. RESULTS: Bayley-III cognitive and language scores were close to the normative mean and were higher than BSID-II MDI scores. Nineteen (10.2%) children had MDI <70. Bayley-III scores <70 significantly underestimated the proportion with MDI <70. Bayley-III cognitive and language scores <85 had 99% agreement with MDI <70 and underestimated delay by 1.1%. CB-III scores <80 had 98% agreement and produced the same proportion with delay. CONCLUSION: Bayley-III cognitive and language scores <85 or CB-III scores <80 provide the best definition of moderate-severe neurodevelopmental delay for equivalence with MDI <70. CB-III scores have the advantage of producing a single continuous outcome measure but require further validation. The relative accuracy of both tests for predicting long-term outcomes requires investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available