4.2 Article

Children with heavy prenatal alcohol exposure demonstrate deficits on multiple measures of concept formation

期刊

ALCOHOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 1388-1397

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00707.x

关键词

fetal alcohol syndrome; prenatal alcohol exposure; executive functioning; concept formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Children with heavy prenatal alcohol exposure have documented impairments in executive functioning (EF). One component of EF, concept formation, has not been well studied in this group. Methods: Children (8 to 18 years) with histories of heavy prenatal alcohol exposure, with and without fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), were compared to typically developing controls on 2 measures of concept formation and conceptual set shifting: the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and the Card Sorting Test front the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System. In addition to between-group comparisons, performance relative to overall intellectual functioning was examined. Results: Children with histories of heavy prenatal alcohol exposure showed impairment on both tests of concept formation compared to non-exposed controls. These deficits included difficulty generating and verbalizing concepts, increased error rates and perseverative responses, and poorer response to feedback. However, in comparison to controls, alcohol-exposed children performed better on measures of concept formation than predicted by their overall IQ scores. Exploratory analyses suggest that this may be due to differences in how the measures relate at different IQ levels and may not be specific to prenatal alcohol exposure. Conclusions: Deficits in concept formation and conceptual set shifting were observed in alcohol-exposed children with or without the diagnosis of FAS and in the absence of mental retardation. These deficits likely impact problem solving skills and adaptive functioning and have implications for therapeutic interventions in this population.

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

4.2
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