Twins as a natural experiment to study the causes of mild language delay: I: Design; twin-singleton differences in language, and obstetric risks
Twins as a natural experiment to study the causes of mild language delay: I: Design; twin-singleton differences in language, and obstetric risks
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1469-7610.00125
复制
发表时间：
2003-03-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Golding, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rutter, M;Thorpe, K;Golding, J
背景：双胞胎在语言发展方面往往落后于单胞胎，但原因尚不清楚。建议的可能性包括产科并发症，双胞胎的具体功能，和产后差异的家庭互动。本研究旨在将这些替代品作为可能的因果影响相互对立。方法：雅芳亲子纵向研究（ALSPAC）被用来确定116对双胞胎（其中96人参与）和114对单胞胎（其中98人参与），他们的年龄相差不超过30个月。在20个月时完成麦克阿瑟沟通发展量表，在36个月时完成学前语言量表（PLS-3）和麦卡锡儿童能力量表。产科和围产期并发症进行了评估的基础上，详细系统的父母报告，以及系统的编码摘要的所有医疗记录处理怀孕和新生儿期。家庭背景的详细资料进行了评估，从父母的报告，和主要照顾者的语言功能进行了评估的米尔希尔词汇量表。使用Waldrop和Halverson的方法评估先天性异常。结果：双胞胎的语言能力在20个月时比单胞胎低1.7个月，在3岁时比单胞胎低3.1个月。双胞胎的言语认知得分比单胞胎低大约半个标准差。双胞胎的语言水平的差异被认为是无关的产科/围产期的功能，评估从父母的报告和医疗记录，出生体重或妊娠，出生体重差异双胞胎对，或先天性异常。结论：它的结论是，产科/围产期功能不占双胞胎的语言发育较慢，与单胞胎相比，在一个样本出生后，至少33周的妊娠。
Background: Twins tend to lag behind singletons in their language development, but the causes were unknown. The possibilities suggested include obstetric complications, twin-specific features, and postnatal differences in family interaction. The present study was designed to pit these alternatives against one another as possible causal influences. Method: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) was used to identify the 116 twin pairs (of whom 96 participated) and 114 pairs of singletons (of whom 98 participated) whose ages were no more than 30 months apart. The McArthur Communicative Development Inventory was completed at 20 months, and the Pre-School Language Scales (PLS-3), and the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities at 36 months. Obstetric and perinatal complications were assessed on the basis of detailed systematic parental reports, together with a systematic coded abstraction of all medical records dealing with pregnancy and the neonatal period. Family background details were assessed from parental reports, and the primary carer's verbal functioning was assessed by the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale. Congenital anomalies were assessed using the method of Waldrop and Halverson. Results: The language of twins was 1.7 months below that of singletons at 20 months and 3.1 months at 3 years. The verbal cognitive score of twins was about half a standard deviation lower than that of singletons. The twin-singleton differences in language level were found to be unassociated with obstetric/perinatal features as assessed from both parental reports and medical records, to birthweight or gestation, to birthweight discrepancy within the twin pair, or to congenital anomalies. Conclusions: It is concluded that obstetric/perinatal features do not account for the slower language development in twins as compared with singletons, within a sample born after at least 33 weeks gestation.