Standardized test performance of children with a history of prenatal exposure to multiple drugs/cocaine

• Published in: Journal of communication disorders Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 45 - 73
• Main Authors: Johnson, Jeanne M., Seikel, J.Anthony, Madison, Charles L., Foose, Shari M., Rinard, Keri D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 1997; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Child, Preschool; Cocaine; Communication Skills; Crack Babies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Drug addictions; Female; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Infants; Language Acquisition; Language Disorders - diagnosis; Language Impairments; Language Skills; Language Tests; Male; Medical sciences; Pregnancy; Prenatal Drug Exposure; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Preschool Children; Toddlers; Toxicology; Human; Preschool age; Sex; Aptitude test; Infant; Psychometrics; Cognition; Exposure; Language disorder; Pregnancy; Prenatal; Verbal ability; Communication disorder; Risk factor; Language development; Cocaine; Drug of abuse; Cognitive development; Child
• ISSN: 0021-9924; 1873-7994
• DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9924(96)00055-X

Twenty-four children, age 14 to 50 months, with a history of prenatal exposure to multiple drugs including cocaine, were matched by adjusted birth age and sex to 24 children with no history of drug exposure. All children had been living in stable, drug-free environments from at least the age of 11 months. Tests administered included the Sequenced Inventory of Communicative Development—Revised ( SICD), the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised ( PPVT-R). Results indicated significant differences between groups and genders on the SICD when age was covaried and between groups on the Bayley. No groups or genders differed on the PPVT-R. Many (45.8%) of the children in the drug-exposed group qualified for intervention services according to Washington state criteria. Subject characteristics, other than age, did not play a significant role in the findings of group differences. It is concluded that, due to the cumulative effects of prenatal history, these children should be considered at risk for language delay.