Psychology 2012. Vol.3, No.2, 175-182 Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.32026 Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 175 The Effects of Early Neglect on Cognitive, Language, and Behavioral Functioning in Childhood Eve G. Spratt1,2*, Samantha Friedenberg2, Angel a L aR osa 1, Michael D. De Bellis3, Michelle M. Macias1, Andrea P. Summer1, Thomas C. Hulsey1, Des K. Runyan4, Kathleen T. Brady2 1Department of Pedia t rics, Medical University of South Carolina, Ch a rleston, USA 2Department of Psychiatry and B ehavioral Sciences, Medical Uni v e rsity of South Carolina, Charleston, USA 3Department of Psychiatry a nd Be hav ioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, USA 4Department of Pediatri c s, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chap e l Hill, USA Email: *spratte@musc.edu Received October 5th, 2011; revised November 21st, 2011; accepted December 24th, 2011 Objectives: Few studies have explored the impact of different types of neglect on children’s development. Measures of cognition, language, behavior, and parenting stress were used to explore differences between children experiencing various forms of neglect, as well as to compare children with and without a history of early neglect. Methods: Children, ages 3 to 10 years with a history of familial neglect (USN), were compared to children with a history of institutional rearing (IA) and children without a history of neglect using the Differential Abilities Scale, Test of Early Language Development, Child Behavior Checklist, and Parenting Stress Index. Factors predicting child functioning were also explored. Results: Compared with youth that were not neglected, children with a history of USN and IA demonstrated lower cognitive and language scores and more behavioral problems. Both internalizing and externalizing behavior prob- lems were most common in the USN group. Externalizing behavior problems predicted parenting stress. Higher IQ could be predicted by language scores and an absence of externalizing behavior problems. When comparing the two neglect groups, shorter time spent in a stable environment, lower scores on lan- guage skills, and the presence of externalizing behavior predicted lower IQ. Conclusion: These findings emphasize the importance of early stable, permanent placement of children who have been in neglectful and pre-adoptive international settings. While an enriching environment may promote resilience, children who have experienced early neglect are vulnerable to cognitive, language and behavioral deficits and neurodevelopmental and behavioral evaluations are required to identify those in need of intervention. Keywords: International Adoption; Child Neglect; Childhood Adversity Introduction Neglect is the most prevalent form of child maltreatment in the United States [1] and has been associated with negative social, behavioral, and cognitive consequences [2,3]. In addi- tion to physical and emotional neglect in a home setting, ne- glect can take place in international institution environments where a lack of consistent caregivers, crowded conditions, and too few employees may lead to an infant or toddler not having their physical, social, and/or emotional needs met [4]. Early childhood is a vulnerable period for the acquisition and devel- opment of cognitive, language, and emotion regulation abilities, and therefore neglect in early childhood is of particular concern [5]. Normal development may be disrupted by deprivation as- sociated with neglect and can result in dysregulation of neural systems during vulnerable periods of brain development [6-9], leading to pronounced neurocognitive deficits due to maltreat- ment [10-13]. Low-stimulation environments and inconsistent parenting (lack of rules, failure to monitor child, inconsistent punishment and reward) [14], common in both physical neglect environ- ments and orphanage setting [15,16], can lead to lower scores on intelligence and language tests [17-19]. A study including 33 mother-child dyads found that children with a history of neglect scored significantly lower on measures of syntactic ability and receptive vocabulary when age and maternal IQ were controlled [18]. A 2001 study found progressive cognitive decline in children experiencing substantiated neglect in com- parison to non-neglected children [19]. Children reared in in- stitutional settings fall victim to similar risk factors; there are poor child-caregiver ratios, inadequate cognitive, sensory, and linguistic stimulation, and unresponsive care-giving practices [20]. Therefore, the children may exhibit delays in development of IQ, language, and social emotional functioning as well as impaired attachment [21-24]. The purpose of the current study was to compare cognitive, language, and behavioral functioning of children with no his- tory of neglect to children with early neglectful situations, spe- cifically those who experience physical and emotional neglect from a caregiver or deprivation due to pre-adoptive placement in an international institution environment. This study exam- ined children who had the experience of international institution life and were then adopted into higher socioeconomic status (SES) households. This international adoption group was com- pared with United States born children with a history of physi- *Corresponding author.
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. cal or emotional neglect. These children remained in a similar SES when placed in an extended family member’s household (grandmother, great aunt) post-removal from neglectful envi- ronment. Both neglect groups (international adoption and US neglect) were also compared to a control group of United States-born children without a history of neglect. Following previous research on the effects of neglect and child resilience [20,25], we hypothesized that the control group would have significantly better scores than either of the neglect groups on all cognitive, language, and behavioral measures. It was also hypothesized that adopted children would have lower language scores but less behavior problems and parental stress than US neglect children. In the neglect groups, we predicted that behavior problems would be associated with parental stress, and that a longer time in a non-neglectful environment would account for any differences in externalizing and internalizing symptoms between the two neglect groups. Methods Design A cohort of 60 children was divided into three groups: 1) US children with a history of physical or emotional neglect as de- fined by the Barnett Child Maltreatment Classification Scheme (MCS) [26] (USN); 2) children adopted from international in- stitutions (IA); and 3) US children with no history of neglect, abuse, or adoption (Control). Participants Participants were between the ages of three and ten years. Seventeen children met criteria for the USN group and were living with a care-giving relative, a rehabilitated offending parent, or a non-offending parent at the time of the study. Fif- teen children met criteria for the IA group; one child was from a Central American foster home and the rest were from Eastern European institutions. These children were living with their adoptive families at the time of the study. Twenty-eight chil- dren had neither experienced neglect nor out-of-home place- ment and met criteria for the control group. Participants with any of the following conditions were ex- cluded from the study: 1) malnutrition as indicated by Centers for Disease Control charts [27] (weight adjusted for stature <1st percentile); 2) morbid obesity (Body Mass Index over 40); 3) birth complications (birth weight <2500 g, gestational age <37 weeks, or respiratory distress syndrome); 4) IQ below 70; 5) neurobiological disorders (Cerebral Palsy, Childhood Schizo- phrenia, Autism, Morbid Obesity, or Central Nervous System Disorders); 6) known in-utero substance exposure that led to a prolonged hospital stay for the infant or, 7) a serious medical condition. It is also important to note that children in current Child Protective Services (CPS) and/or foster care were ex- cluded from the study because the state agency would not give permission to do research with this population. Research Procedures This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) and sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the MUSC Clinical and Translational Research Center (CTRC). Children and their caregivers participating in the study were referred by medical or mental health practitioners or were self-referred after reviewing flyers. The caregivers signed a release of information form to obtain educational, medical (birth records, prenatal care of mother, and ongoing medical and mental health care), and adoption records. Families were interviewed to clarify details about the child’s clinical and ne- glect history. All participants signed a release to allow access to the state’s Child Protective Services (CPS) records to assure that controls had no abuse or neglect history and to obtain addi- tional details on cases that were involved with CPS. For clari- fication, Child Protective Services is a government agency in many states that responds to reports of child abuse or neglect. The Department of Social Services includes CPS, as well as assistance with Medicaid, child support, public housing, foster care, adoptions, Adult Protective Services, and a supplemental nutrition assistance program. Once informed consent was ob- tained, children and their caregivers attended an appointment at the CTRC outpatient clinic where the child underwent a physi- cal examination, which included vital signs, head circumfer- ence, height, weight and collection of serum, urine, and saliva. Standardized measures of language and cognitive abilities were administered to children, and caregivers completed question- naires assessing child behavioral functioning and parental stress. Psychometric and cognitive evaluations were administered by a licensed psychologist. Measures All tests administered were standardized, and testing was al- ways done with a measure appropriate for the participant’s age. Cognitive functioning. The Differential Abilities Scale for Children (DAS): Third Edition [28] is a standardized cognitive assessment for children between 2 years 6 months and 17 years 11 months [28] and is particularly useful when testing children in the late toddler and early childhood range. The DAS yields 17 cognitive and 3 achievement subtest scores and enables identification of a child’s cognitive capabilities with a score for General Conceptual Ability (GCA). The GCA is derived from only those subtests which have high correlations to overall general abilities. The cluster scores yield broad measures of verbal ability, nonverbal reasoning ability, and general concep- tual ability (GCA) [29]. The standard scores, ranging from 20 to 80, for each subtest are based on age with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Percentiles may also be expressed. Language functioning. The Test of Early Language Devel- opment: Third Edition (TELD) [30] is a standardized, norm- referenced test that was designed to measure the expressive and receptive language development of children ages 2 through 6 years 11 months. Standard scores are provided for Receptive Language, Expressive Language, and an overall Oral Language Composite. A standard score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, and percentiles are usually listed for clarifica- tion. All participants in the international adoption group had to meet language competency skills to participate in the study. Children above the TELD age range were given the Test of Language Development (TOLD). If the children were between the ages 7 to 9 years, they were given the TOLD-Primary. This assessment looks at nine sub-categories of oral language com- petency and is approved for children ages 4 to 9 years. If the children were above 9 years old, they were given the TOLD- Intermediate. This assessment examines six sub-tests and is approved for children ages 8 to 18 years old. Both the TOLD- Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 176
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 177 Primary and the TOLD-Intermediate are used to assess the oral language proficiency of children [31]. Behavioral functioning. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) [32], measures caregiver ratings of behavioral and emotional functioning of children ages 1 1/2 to 18 and includes three broad band behavior problem scales: Internalizing, Ex- ternalizing, and Total. Subscales include withdrawn, anxious/ depressed, somatic complaints, attention problems and aggres- sive behavior. The score on each syndrome is derived from summing the numbers circled by the parent. The percentile of the national normal sample for each syndrome score is used through comparison to give a T score. Using the T score, prac- titioners are able rank the child’s score and percentile as com- pared to thousands of other same gender and age children. For example, if a child was at the 69th percentile, then 69% of the children in the national normative sample scored either at or below this score. There are several cutoffs for normal range, borderline range, and clinical range to categorize behavior problems. Parenting Stress Index (PSI-SF) [33]. The PSI Short Form is a 36-item parent self-report instrument containing three fac- tor-analytically-derived subscales (Parental Distress, Parent- Child Dysfunctional Interaction, and Difficult Child) and a Total Stress score. Each subscale consists of 12 items that can be rated from 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). It is a sound, brief screening measure of parenting stress where higher scores on subscales and total scores indicate greater amounts of stress. Child Maltreatment—Neglect. Measurements used to deter- mine neglect and other maltreatment summary variables were obtained from archival record data including CPS, medical, mental health and institutional records. After reviewing archival data and interviewing the current guardian, investigators deter- mined whether the child experienced neglect (physical or med- ical) and/or abuse (physical, sexual, or emotional). It was also noted if the child witnessed domestic violence. Out of the 32 children from the international adoption and US neglect groups combined, it was known that 8 (25%) had a previous caregiver who abused drugs, 11 (34.4%) who abused alcohol, and 13 (40.6%) who smoked in utero. In reference to the neglect and abuse findings, 18 (56.3%) children were known to have ex- perienced physical neglect, 6 experienced medical neglect (18.8%) (with 4 being from no prenatal care), 7 (21.9%) ex- perienced physical abuse, 1 (3.1%) experienced sexual abuse, and 3 (9.4%) experienced emotional abuse. Seven (21.9%) children witnessed domestic violence. It is important to note that these measurements, evaluations, and parental reports were obtained after all neglected children were placed in a stable, non-neglectful environment for at least a year by adoptive parents or a relative. The IA group had an average time of 51.6 months in a stable environment, and the USN had an average time of 27.5 months. The control group participants had always been living in a stable environment. Although spending time in a stable environment prior to testing may be seen as a limitation, the time frame could have served as an adjustment period to better understand the long term per- vasive and more deeply rooted cognitive, emotional and be- havioral concerns. Statistical Analysis SAS (version 9.2, SAS Institute, Inc.) or SPSS (version 16.0.1, SPSS, Inc. ) statistical programs were used for all analy- ses. Student’s t-test or ANOVA were used to compare means of normally distributed continuous variables. Chi Square or Fisher’s Exact test were used to assess group differences in categorical variables. ANCOVA (controlling for annual house- hold income) was used to compare the three groups on meas- ures of cognitive ability, language ability, behavioral issues, and parenting stress. Multiple Linear Regression was used to examine predictive models while simultaneously adjusting for potential confounding variables. Results Demographic and environmental variables are reported in Table 1. There were no significant differences between groups on race, age, or gender. USN group members were older at the time of placement with a relative, non-offending or rehabili- tated offending caregiver, t(30) = 2.82, p = .008. These children had spent a larger proportion of time in the unstable environ- ment than the IA group, t(30) = 3.11, p = .004. The time spent in the current home (defined as a stable environment) prior to study participation was greater for children in the IA than USN group, t(30) = 4.13, p =. 010. It is however suspected that the deprivation was more chronic and severe during the first year(s) of life for the IA group. Although it is challenging to describe and control for a stable environment (in the control group as well as the neglect groups), the term is used to describe the households who have no recent reports of child neglect or abuse and have parents or caretakers concerned enough for these children to be seen in medical or mental health clinics. No sig- nificant concerns were identified when the project study coor- dinator visited the home to obtain the informed consent. When Table 1. Demographic information. Control US IA Gender Male = 15; Female = 13 Male = 8; Female = 9 Male = 9; Female = 6 Race White = 20; Black = 6; Other = 2White = 12; Black = 2; Other = 3 White = 14; Other = 1 Age (in months) M = 67; SD = 21.4 M = 64; SD = 26.9 M = 73; SD = 12.7 Annual hous ehold income M = 109,019; SD = 54,995 M = 37,889; SD = 22,031 M = 120,466; SD = 68,376 Age at time of removal from neglectful environm ent (in month s ) M = 32.1; SD = 15.5 M = 20.7; SD = 13.0 Proportion of life in neglectful environment M = 55.8%; SD = 24. 9% M = 30.9%; SD = 19. 8% Time in current home (in months) M = 28.8; SD = 17.3 M = 51.7; SD = 28.8
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. studying people and their home environments, there are limita- tions to knowing the specifics of the household and to knowing their constant activity. The inability to measure a “stable envi- ronment” in any way other than home observation and medical record review could be considered a limitation of this study. The three groups differed on annual household income, F(2,57) = 10.48, p < .0001, with the USN group having significantly lower current income than IA (p < .0001) and healthy controls (p = .008). As shown in Table 2, when controlling for annual household income using analysis of covariance, the USN, IA, and Control groups differed significantly on measures of cognitive and lan- guage functioning, behavior problems, and parenting stress. Significant group differences were explored as reported below. Control v. US N The control group performed significantly better than the USN group on the DAS nonverbal (p = .05) and GCA (p = .008) subscales as well as the TELD receptive (p = .004), expressive (p = .006), and Oral Composite (p = .002). The USN group scored significantly higher than controls on the CBCL Atten- tion (p < .0001), Aggression (p < .0001), Anxiety and Depres- sion (p < .0001), Internalizing (p < .0001), Externalizing (p < .0001), and Total Problems (p < .0001) subscales as well as the PSI Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction subscale (p < .0001). Control v. IA Children in the control group performed significantly better than children in the IA group on DAS verbal (p = .04) and GCA (p = .003) as well as TELD receptive (p = .002), expres- sive (p < .001) and Oral Composite (p < .001). The IA group exhibited significantly higher scores on the CBCL Attention (p = .002), Internalizing (p = .026), Externalizing (p = .03) and Total Problems (p < .001) subscales. USN v. IA The USN group scored significantly higher than the IA group on CBCL Anxiety and Depression (p = .009), Attention (p = .002), Aggression (p = .001), Internalizing (p = .02), Exter- nalizing (p = .01), and Total Problems (p = .02) subscales. Correlations When USN and IA groups were combined to form one child neglect (CN) group, there were significant positive correlations between time in stable environment and scores on the DAS GCA scale (r = .468, p = .014) and the DAS nonverbal scale (r =.451, p = .021). Considering the USN group individually, there were significant positive correlations between time in stable environment and DAS GCA (r = .535, p = .027) and DAS nonverbal (r = .630, p = .007). Considering the IA group individually, a significant positive correlation was observed between time in neglectful environment and CBCL internaliz- ing subscale (r = .542, p = .037). Multiple Regression A series of five multiple linear regression models was de- veloped to examine the predictors of outcome on the DAS GCA, PSI Total Stress scale, CBCL Internalizing, and CBCL Exter- nalizing scales and to compare US, IA, and control groups. Variables included in each model are listed in Table 3. Model 1 revealed that 78% of the variance in scores on the DAS GCA could be accounted for by scores on the TELD Oral composite scale and CBCL Externalizing subscale. Model 2 explained that 62% of variance in PSI Total Stress scores was accounted for by scores on the CBCL externalizing subscale. Being a member of either the USN or IA groups was not pre- Table 2. ANCOVA comparison of US, IA, and control on cognitive, l a ng u a ge , and behavioral functioning with means adjusted for income. Control US IA MSE F P Least Squares Mean DAS Verbal 97.77 90.44 87.33 12.40 3.74 .018 DAS Nonverbal 107.16 95.96 97.62 14.56 3.46 .025 DAS GCA 104.41 92.12 89.97 12.30 10.56 <.0001 TELD Receptive 106.14 92.40 90.49 12.74 9.33 <.0001 TELD Expressive 100.13 87.64 83.71 12.01 8.96 .0001 Oral Composite 103.84 87.76 84.00 13.50 10.69 <.0001 PSI-PCDI 17.05 28.09 20.41 7.11 7.07 .0004 CBCL Anxiety Depression t-score 51.16 61.24 54.57 5.94 9.48 <.0001 CBCL Attention t-score 51.63 67.59 58.84 6.57 21.38 <.0001 CBCL Aggression t-score 51.38 70.98 55.69 10.61 9.95 <.0001 CBCL Internalizing t-score 44.49 61.83 52.21 10.09 11.63 <.0001 CBCL Externalizing t-score 44.77 65.26 53.03 11.11 12.03 <.0001 CBCL Total t-score 43.33 66.02 55.80 10.36 18.41 <.0001 Note: DAS = Differential Abilities Scale; DAS GCA = Differential Abilities Scale General Conceptual Ability; TELD = Test of Early Language Development; PSI-PCDI = Parenting Stress Index-Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 178
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. Table 3. Multiple linear regression models 1 - 5. Variable β Standard Error T P Model 1: Dependent Variable DAS GCA* TELD Oral Composite .71.08 9.00<.0001 CBCL Internalizing Subscale –.03.13 –.23.91 CBCL Externalizing Subscale –.25.12 –2.01.05 USN 1.883.28 .57.56 IA 1.433.15 .45.65 Model 2: Dependent Variable PSI Total S tress* TELD Oral Composite .28.17 1.67.10 CBCL Internalizing Subscale .39.28 1.39.17 CBCL Externalizing Subscale 1.11.27 4.18.0001 USN 3.206.92 .46.65 IA –1.786.66 –.27.79 Model 3: Dependent Variable CBCL Internalizing* DAS GCA –.35.19 –1.85.07 TELD Oral Composite .11.18 .62.53 USN 12.933.89 3.33.0017 IA 2.224.27 .52.61 Model 4: Dependent Variable CBCL Externalizing* DAS GCA –.53.19 –2.79.0076 TELD Oral Composite .22.18 1.24.22 USN 13.963.97 3.51.0010 IA .404.37 .09.93 Model 5: Dependent Variable DAS GCA** TELD Oral Composite .71.13 5.18<.0001 CBCL Internalizing Subscale .24.17 1.41.17 CBCL Externalizing Subscale –.29.15 –2.00.06 Time in Neglectful Environment .12.13 .89.38 Time in Stable Environment .40.14 2.87.009 USN –1.553.69 –.42.68 *Controls included as intercept. **IA included as intercept. Note: DAS GCA = Differential Abilities Scale Global Conceptual Ability; TELD = Test of Early Language Development; USN = US born neglect group; IA = International adop- tion group. dictive of scores on the DAS GCA or PSI Total Stress scale. Model 3 showed that being in the USN group significantly predicted scores on the CBCL Internalizing subscale account- ing for 41% of variance. Model 4 revealed that scores on the DAS GCA and being a member of the USN group explained 49% of the variance in externalizing behavior. Model 5 includ- ing only USN and IA groups was created to examine the pre- dictive value of time in a stable environment on DAS GCA scores. This model explained 71% of the variance with the TELD oral composite scale and predicting scores related to time in a stable environment on the DAS GCA. Discussion As hypothesized, when controlling for SES, children in the control group exhibited higher levels of cognitive, language, and behavioral functioning than both neglect groups, and the IA group exhibited better behavioral adjustment than the USN group. The greatest differences in behavioral and cognitive measures were found between the USN and control groups. As children develop, the neurocognitive deficits associated with adverse early life events can impair functioning and in- crease the vulnerability for social and behavioral difficulties. A cross-sectional study of 420 children indicated that those with a history of maltreatment performed more poorly in school than their non-maltreated counterparts [34]. When controlling for age, maltreated children had lower grades and more suspen- sions, disciplinary referrals, and grade repetitions in elementary, junior high, and senior high school [34]. Neglect is the type of maltreatment most strongly associated with delays in expressive, receptive, and overall language de- velopment [35]. Slow language development plays a role in behavioral difficulties across the life span, with approximately 70% of children with language impairments exhibiting co -mo rbi d behavior problems [36]. Children who are unable to communi- cate effectively may not have the necessary skills to negotiate or resolve conflict and may have difficulties understanding and relating to others. Psychiatric disorders such as attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, depression, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder are highly associated with language impairment, and a combination of these problems may lead to poor social functioning as these individuals enter adulthood [36]. Although the current sample of USN children had difficulties in all realms tested, it may be that impaired language development, as determined by the USN children’s significantly lower scores on all subscales of the TELD as compared to controls, is contributing to the higher number of behavior problems in the USN group. Children with a history of neglect are at risk for impaired language development if they are not provided the complex linguistic input and personal interactions necessary for optimal development of language skills. Studies have shown that the quality of mother-child interactions help predict cognitive and linguistic outcomes in preschool-aged children of high social risk mothers [37]. Interpersonal interaction is necessary for the acquisition of early language [38], and these interactions may be limited for children that have been in institutional settings [39] or have experienced physical or emotional neglect [18]. In addition to the hardships of neglectful environments, children adopted internationally are also at risk for deficits in language acquisition due to the challenges of learning a new language [40]. In the current study, children in the IA group were living in homes with higher annual household incomes than children in the USN group, which may have provided greater opportunities for enrichment and subsequent cognitive, language, and behav- ioral development. Juffer and van Ijzendoorn (2005) found similar behavioral results when comparing children adopted internationally with children adopted domestically and deduced that parents of international adoptees tend to have more finan- cial resources to invest in the child’s development, which may be a contributing factor to their having fewer behavioral prob- Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 179
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. lems [41]. Consistent with the demographic information of our study sample, low income is strongly associated with child abuse and neglect [42], and children living in poverty are ex- posed to environmental hazards such as violence, hunger, infe- rior health care, and few recreational opportunities [43]. Al- though both IA and USN children were exposed to neglectful environments in early childhood, the placement of IA children in higher income families may have provided an environment that promoted resilience from adversity. Factors that promote resilience for children that have experienced abuse and neglect include structured school environment, involvement in extra- curricular activities and the religious community, and a suppor- tive adult providing emotionally responsive care-giving [44]. Numerous studies have examined the association between ne- glect and poverty as well as poverty and child outcomes [45]; however, little research has investigated the association be- tween neglect and child outcomes as mediated by annual household income. This enrichment of cognitive and language skills that often accompanies higher SES status in turn may have helped to provide protection from behavioral problems [46]. In addition, the perceived variance in language scores between the USN group and the children in the IA and control groups may be due in part to parental language and education level. Externalizing behavioral problems of children play a primary role in elevating stress levels for parents, particularly in con- junction with perceived inadequacy of support and/or resources [47]. The current study revealed an association between behav- ior problems and parenting stress, consistent with prior research [48-51]. Hung et al. (2004) [52] suggests that quantifying pa- rental distress is an essential part of a diagnostic assessment for young children with special needs. Parent support groups and parenting education courses have proved to be useful interven- tion strategies for stressed parents [53]. Since there is often great diversity in the families of children with a history of ne- glect or international adoption, successful interventions might include components addressing parental coping styles and sup- port in dealing with behavioral challenges. Because the current study relied on parental report at least 1 year post-placement in stable environment, it is unclear whether child behavior prob- lems exacerbated parental stress or vice versa. Associations between IQ and behavior problems can lead to increased pa- rental stress, or stressed parents may cause children to exhibit more behavior problems. The findings that neglected children perform more poorly on tests of cognition and have signifi- cantly elevated behavior problems reflect to the need for earlier evaluations and interventions for children with a history of neglect. Time in a stable environment does appear to be protective as there was a positive association with measures of cognitive ability in the USN group. These findings support the recom- mendations of Nelson et al. (2007) that intervention as early as possible through placement in a nurturing environment yields improved outcomes such as increase in cognitive ability [20]. Our suspicions are that the periods of deprivation were longer and more chronic for those in an institution vs a neglectful home. One study has found that children with a history of ne- glect that do not return to biologic parents may fare best [54]. The influence of time spent in neglectful environments on be- havioral and cognitive impairment, as well as a closer examina- tion of factors that appear to be protective against neurodevel- opmental and behavioral problems, should be the focus of sub- sequent research studies. In the small number of studies examining deprivation due to institutionalization, internationally adopted children have dem- onstrated difficulties with attention, language, and aggression similar to children experiencing physical neglect [55,56]. A strength of this study is that to date, no published studies have compared neglected children from the United States who live with their relatives or foster families to children who have ex- perienced early deprivation in an institution. Understanding the differential impact of these two kinds of deprivation and ne- glect may help with the development of family-based interven- tions for these and other populations experiencing adverse childhood events. Despite a small sample size, there were statistically signifi- cant findings which emphasize the prevalence and severity of the issues addressed. However, all behavioral participant in- formation obtained was by parental report (not by a blinded rater or outside observer) and therefore might reflect the view only of the parent. Some of the limitations faced included the challenge of assessing the severity and chronologic sequence of neglect, institutions differing in the quality of care, adoptive parents being more tolerant of negative behaviors, and possible incomplete historical records. We cannot exclude other types of maltreatment that play a role in the outcomes of this study, but the predominant insult for these young children was a history of physical neglect and less than optimal care. Children in current child protective services and foster care were not involved in this study, leaving out the more severe US neglect cases. Future studies would benefit from unbiased child behavioral data through reliable coders, teachers, and whenever possible, care- giver and child self- r ep o rt measures. In closing, some researchers have written of the “neglect of neglect” [45]. In the maltreatment field, there has been a ten- dency to focus on physical and sexual abuse leaving many cli- nicians and educators with poor understanding of the potential impact of neglect on a young child’s cognitive, language, and behavioral development. Neglect may be the most detrimental maltreatment type on brain development [6,57,58]. As this study indicates, environment post-neglect may serve as a buffer for some problems, and children from a neglectful environment require more intervention than placement in a non-neglectful home. Multifaceted interventions addressing cognitive, lan- guage and behavioral difficulties are needed to maximize the optimum potential in each of these children. Acknowledgements NIH/NIMH K23MH064111: Neurodevelopmental Biology of Neglected Children (PI: Eve G. Spratt). NIH/NIDA K24DA 00435: Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Re- search (PI: Kathleen T. Brady). NIH/NIMH K24MH71434: Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (PI: Michael D. De Bellis). Special thanks to: Medical University of South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Center; Pam Ingram, M. Ed, Josie Kirker, MSW, Loriann Ueberroth and Mary Kral, PhD. REFERENCES Child Welfare Information Gateway (2009). Strengthening families and communities: 2009 resource guide. US Department of Health and Human Services. Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 180
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. Cahill, L. T., Kaminer, R. K., & Johnson, P. G. (1999). Developmental cognitive and behavioral sequelae of child abuse. Child and Adoles- cent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 8, 827-843. Pynoos, R., Steinberg, A. M., & Wraith, R. (1995). A developmental model of childhood traumatic stress. In D., Cicchetti, & J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (pp. 72-95). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., & Dumitrescu, A. (2002). Attachment disturbances in young children. II: Indiscriminate behavior and insti- tutional care. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Ado- lescent Psychiatry, 41, 983-989. doi:10.1097/00004583-200208000-00017 Munakata, Y., Casey, B. J., & Diamond, A. (2004). Developmental cognitive neuroscience: Progress and potential. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 122-128. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.005 Perry, B. D. (2001). The neuroarcheology of childhood maltreatment: The neurodevelopmental costs of adverse childhood events. In: B. Geffner (Ed.), The cost of child maltreatment: Who pays? We all do. San Diego: Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute. Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L. et al. (1995). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and “use-dependent” devel- opment of the brain: How “states” become “traits”. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16, 271-291. doi:10.1002/1097-0355(199524)16:4<271::AID-IMHJ2280160404> 3.0.CO;2-B Pollak, S., Cicchetti, D., Klorman, R. et al. (1997). Cognitive brain event-related potentials and emotion processing in maltreated chil- dren. Child Development, 68, 773-787. doi:10.2307/1132032 Wismer, F. A., Shirtcliff, E., & Pollak, S. (2008). Neuroendocrine dysregulation following early social deprivation in children. Devel- opmental Psychobiology, 50, 588-599. doi:10.1002/dev.20319 Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (2005). School performance and disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Devel- opmental Psychology, 29, 53-62. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.53 Pears, K., & Fisher, P. A. (2005). Developmental, cognitive, and neu- ropsychological functioning in preschool-aged foster children: Asso- ciations with prior maltreatment and placement history. Develop- mental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 112-122. doi:10.1097/00004703-200504000-00006 Prasad, M. R., Kramer, L. A., & Ewing-Cobbs, L. (2005). Cognitive and neuroimaging findings in physically abused preschoolers. Ar- chives of Disease in Childhood, 90, 82-85. doi:10.1136/adc.2003.045583 Lee, V., & Hoaken, P. N. S. (2007). Cognition, emotion, and neurobio- logical development: Mediating the relation between maltreatment and aggression. Child Maltreatment, 12, 281-298. doi:10.1177/1077559507303778 Gardner, F. E. M. (1989). Inconsistent parenting: Is there evidence for a link with children’s conduct problems? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17. O’Connor, T. G., Rutter, M., & ERA Study Team (2000). Attachment disorder behavior following early severe deprivation: Extenstion and longitudinal follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 703-712. doi:10.1097/00004583-200006000-00008 Groark, C. J., Muhamedrahimov, R. J., Palmov, O. I. et al. (2005). Improvements in early care in Russian orphanages and their rela- tionship to observed behaviors. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 96-109. doi:10.1002/imhj.20041 Eisen, M. L., Goodman, G. S., Qin, J. et al. (2007). Maltreated chil- dren’s memory: Accuracy, suggestibility, and psychopathology. De- velopmental Psychology, 43, 1275-1294. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1275 Eigsti, I. M., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The impact of child maltreatment on expressive syntax at 60 months. Developmental Science, 7, 88-102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00325.x Strathearn, L., Gray, P. H., & Wood, D. O. (2001). Childhood neglect and cognitive development in extremely low birth weight infants: A prospective study. Pediatrics, 108, 142-151. doi:10.1542/peds.108.1.142 Nelson III, C. A., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A. et al. (2007). Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucharest early intervention project. Science, 318, 1937-1940. doi:10.1126/science.1143921 Gunnar, M. R. (2001). Effects of early deprivation: Findings from orphanage-reared infants and children. In: C. H. Nelson, & M. Luci- ana (Eds.), Handbook of developmental neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morison, S. J., Ames, A., & Chisholm, K. (1995). The development of children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Merrill-Palmer Quar- terly, 41, 411. Rutter, M. (1998). Developmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation. Journal of Child Psy- chology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 39, 465. doi:10.1017/S0021963098002236 Zeanah, C. H., Nelson, C. A., Fox, N. A. et al. (2003). Designing re- search to study the effects of institutionalization on brain and behav- ioral development: The Bucharest early intervention project. Devel- opment and Psychopathology, 15, 885-907. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000452 Hildyard, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes [small star, filled]. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 679-695. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00341-1 Barnett, D., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child mal- treatment: The interface between policy and research. In D. Cicchetti, & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Child abuse, child development, and social pol- icy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2000). 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: Methods and development. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Elliott, C. D. (1990). Differential ability scales. In C. D. Elliott (Ed.), Administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psycho- logical Corporation. Aylward, G. P. (1994). Practitioner’s guide to developmental and psy- chological testing. New York, London: Plenum Medical Book Com- pany. Hresko, W., Reid, D., & Hammill, D. (1981). The test of early language development. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Hammill, D., & Newcomer, P. (2010). Speech and language assess- ments. URL (last checked 19 August 2010). http://www.psych-edpublications.com/speech.htm#toldp Achenbach, T. M. (1991). The child behavior checklist. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. Abidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting stress index-short form. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Eckenrode, J. (1996). The effects of neglect on academic achievement and disciplinary problems: A develop- mental perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 161-169. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(95)00139-5 Culp, R. E., Watkins, R. V., Lawrence, H. et al. (1991). Maltreated children’s language and speech development: Abused, neglected, and abused and neglected. First Language, 11, 377-389. doi:10.1177/014272379101103305 Im-Bolter, N., & Cohen, N. J. (2007). Language impairment and psy- chiatric comorbidities. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 54, 525- 542. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2007.02.008 Kelly, J. F., Morisset, C. E., Barnard, K. E. et al. (1996). The influence of early mother-child interaction on preschool cognitive/linguistic outcomes in a high-social-risk group. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17, 310-321. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0355(199624)17:4<310::AID-IMHJ3>3.0.C O;2-Q Nicely, P., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1999). Moth- ers’ attuned responses to infant affect expressivity promote earlier achievement of language milestones. Infant Behavior and Develop- ment, 22, 577-568. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(00)00023-0 Windsor, J., Glaze, L. E., Koga, S. F. et al. (2007). Language acquisi- tion with limited input: Romanian institution and foster care. Journal Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 181
E. G. SPRATT ET AL. Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 182 of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1365-1381. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/095) Glennen, S. (2005). New arrivals: Speech and language assessment for internationally adopted infants and toddlers within the first months home. Seminars in Speech and Language, 26, 10-21. doi:10.1055/s-2005-864212 Juffer, F., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2005). Behavior problems and mental health referrals of international adoptees: A meta-analysis. Jama, 293, 2501-2515. doi:10.1001/jama.293.20.2501 Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Parker, S. W., Greer, S., & Zuckerman, B. (1988). Double jeopardy: The impact of poverty on early child development. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 35, 1227. Heller, S. S., Larrieu, J. A., D’Imperio, R., & Boris, N. W. (1999). Research on resilience to child maltreatment: Empirical considera- tions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 321-338. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00007-1 Dubowitz, H., Papas, M. A., Black, M. M. et al. (2002). Child neglect: Outcomes in high-risk urban preschoolers. Pediatrics, 109, 1100- 1107. doi:10.1542/peds.109.6.1100 Noble, K., McCandliss, B., & Farah, M. (2007). Socioeconomic gradi- ents predict individual differences in neurocognitive abilities. De- velopmental Science, 10, 464-480. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00600.x Spratt, E. G., Macias, M. M., & Saylor, C. F. (2007). Assessing parent- ing stress in multiple samples of children with special needs (CSN). Families, Systems, and Health, 25, 435-449. doi:10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.435 Baker, B. L., Blacher, J., Crnic, K. A. et al. (2002). Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of three-year-old children with and without developmental delays. American Journal on Mental Retar- dation, 107, 433-444. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0433:BPAPSI>2.0.CO;2 Johnston, C., Hessl, D., Blasey, C. et al. (2003). Factors associated with parenting stress in mothers of children with fragile X syndrome. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 24, 267-275. doi:10.1097/00004703-200308000-00008 Ong, L. C., Chandran, V., & Boo, N. Y. (2001). Comparison of parent- ing stress between Malaysian mothers of four-year-old very low birthweight and normal birthweight children. Acta Paediatrica, 90, 1464-1469. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2001.tb01614.x Raina, P., O’Donnell, M., Rosenbaum, P. et al. (2005). The health and well-being of caregivers of children with cerebral palsy. Pediatrics, 115, 626-636. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1689 Hung, J., Wu, Y., & Yeh, C. (2004). Comparing stress levels of parents of children with cancer and parents of children with physical dis- abilities. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 898-903. doi:10.1002/pon.868 Hartman, A. F., Radin, M. B., & McConnell, B. (1992). Parent-to- parent support: A critical component of health care services for fami- lies. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 15, 55-67. doi:10.3109/01460869209078240 Taussig, H. N., Clyman, R. B., & Landsverk, J. (2001). Children who return home from foster care: A 6-year prospective study of behav- ioral health outcomes in adolescence. Pediatrics, 108, e10. doi:10.1542/peds.108.1.e10 Rosnati, R., Montirosso, R., & Barni, D. (2008). Behavioral and emo- tional problems among Italian international adoptees and non- adopted children: Father’s and mother’s reports. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 541-549. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.541 Beverly, B. L., McGuinness, T. M., & Blanton, D. J. (2008). Commu- nication and academic challenges in early adolescence for children who have been adopted from the former Soviet Union. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 303-313. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/029) Sanchez, M. M., Noble, P. M., Lyon, C. K. et al. (2005). Alterations in diurnal cortisol rythm and acoustic startle response in nonhuman primates with adverse rearing. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 373-381. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.11.032 Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1973). Social deprivation in monkeys. Readings from the scientific American: The nature and nurture of behavior. San Francisco: WH Freeman Co.
|