Advertisement

An Experimental Selective Screening Device for the Early Detection of Intellectual Deficit in At-Risk Infants

  • Joseph F. FaganIII
  • Lynn T. Singer
  • Jeanne E. Montie
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Developmental Psychobiology book series (TDP)

Abstract

Attempts have been made to predict intellectual functioning during childhood from various indices of infant sensorimotor development, such as the Gesell Developmental Schedules (Gesell & Amatruda, 1954), the Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale (Cattell, 1960), the Griffiths Scale of Mental Development (Griffiths, 1954), and the Bayley Scales of Mental Development (Bayley, 1969). The basic result has been that infant mental tests based on sensorimotor functioning have been found ineffective in predicting later intelligence (e. g., McCall, Hogarty, & Hurlburt, 1972). For example, correlations obtained between tests of infant sensorimotor development given during the 3- to 7-month period and standard intelligence tests at 3 years or beyond average about.18 for high-risk and clinical samples (Fagan & Singer, 1983).

Keywords

Visual Preference Peabody Picture Vocabulary Novelty Preference Intellectual Deficit Visual Recognition Memory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bayley, N. (1969). The Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
  2. Caron, A. J., & Caron, R. F. (1981). Processing of relational information as an index of infant risk. In S. L. Friedman & M. Sigman (Eds.), Preterm birth and psychological development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Caron, A. J., Caron, R. F., & Glass, P. (1983). Responsiveness to relational information as a measure of cognitive functioning in nonsuspect infants. In T. Field & A. Sostek (Eds.), Infants born at risk. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  4. Cattell, P. (1940). The measurement of intelligence in infants and young children. New York: Science Press. (Reprinted by the Psychological Corp., 1960.)Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L. B. (1981). Lags in the cognitive competence of prematurely born infants. In S. L. Friedman & M. Sigman (Eds.), Preterm birth and psychological development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: Manual for forms L and M. Circle Pines, MN.: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  7. Fagan, J. F. (1970). Memory in the infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 424–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fagan, J. F., Fantz, R. L., & Miranda, S. B. (1971, April). Infants’ attention to novel stimuli as a function of postnatal and conceptional age. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  9. Fagan, J. F. (1981, April). Infant memory and the prediction of intelligence. Paper presented at Society for Research in Child Development meeting, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Fagan, J. F., & McGrath, S. K. (1981). Infant recognition memory and later intelligence. Intelligence, 5, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagan, J. F., & Singer, L. T. (1983). Infant recognition memory as a measure of intelligence. In L. P. Lipsitt (Ed.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. Fagan, J. F. (in press). A new look at infant intelligence. In D. K. Detterman (Ed.), Current topics in human intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Fantz, R. L. (1956). A method for studying early visual development. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 6, 13–15.Google Scholar
  14. Fantz, R. L., & Nevis, S. (1967). The predictive value of changes in visual preference in early infancy. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), The exceptional infant (Vol. 1). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Gesell, A., & Amatruda, C. S. (1954). Developmental diagnosis. New York: Paul B. Holber.Google Scholar
  16. Griffiths, R. (1954). The abilities of babies. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1981). Visual attention at 3 months as a predictor of cognitive functioning at 2 years of age. Intelligence, 5, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCall, R. B., Hogarty, P. S., & Hurlburt, N. (1972). Transitions in infant sensorimotor development and the prediction of childhood IQ. American Psychologist, 27, 728–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miranda, S. B., & Fantz, R. L. (1974). Recognition memory in Down’s syndrome and normal infants. Child Development, 45, 651–660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rose, S. A. (1980). Enhancing visual recognition memory in pre-term infants. Developmental Psychology, 16, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rose, S. A., Gottfired, A. W., & Bridger, W. H. (1979). Effects of haptic cues on visual recognition memory in full-term and pre-term infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sigman, M., & Parmalee, A. H. (1974). Visual preferences of 4-month-old premature and full-term infants. Child Development, 45, 959–965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1973). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: 1973 norms edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Yarrow, L. J., Klein, R. P., Lomonaco, S., & Morgan, G. A. (1975). Cognitive and motivational development in early childhood. In B. X. Friedlander, G. M. Sterritt, & G. E. Kirk (Eds.), Exceptional infant (Vol. 3): New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph F. FaganIII
    • 1
  • Lynn T. Singer
    • 1
  • Jeanne E. Montie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations