4.7 Article

Child Abuse and Neglect and Cognitive Function at 14 Years of Age: Findings From a Birth Cohort

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 127, 期 1, 页码 4-10

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-3479

关键词

neglect; abuse; developmental outcomes; cognitive function; longitudinal study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between child maltreatment (abuse and neglect) and long-term cognitive outcomes within a prospective birth cohort. METHODS: A birth cohort of 7223 children was recruited. Independent reports of suspected child maltreatment were confidentially linked to the longitudinal study database. The principal predictor variable was notification to the state child-protection authority for suspected maltreatment (abuse, neglect, or both). The outcome variables were scores on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) reading test and Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), completed at 14 years of age. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 3796 subjects completed either the WRAT or RSPM. There was a higher loss to follow-up among children who had been reported to the state as suspected victims of maltreatment. After controlling for a range of possible confounders and modifiers, notification to the state for child maltreatment (abuse, neglect, or both) was associated with a lower score on both the WRAT (mean difference: -4.4 when the SD is 15 [95% confidence interval: -6.3 to -2.5]) and RSPM (mean difference: -4.8 when the SD is 15 [95% confidence interval: -6.7 to -2.9]). Both reported abuse and neglect were independently associated with lower reading ability and perceptual reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Both child abuse and child neglect are independently associated with impaired cognition and academic functioning in adolescence. These findings suggest that both abuse and neglect have independent and important adverse effects on a child's cognitive development. Pediatrics 2011;127:4-10

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据