Ann Rehabil Med.  2018 Apr;42(2):313-320. 10.5535/arm.2018.42.2.313.

Comparison of Second and Third Editions of the Bayley Scales in Children With Suspected Developmental Delay

• Yi YG
• Sung IY
• Yuk JS

• KMID: 2432202
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2018.42.2.313

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To compare the scores of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development second edition (BSID-II) and the third edition, Bayley-III, in children with suspected developmental delay and to determine the cutoff score for developmental delay in the Bayley-III.
METHODS
Children younger than 42 months (n=62) with suspected developmental delay who visited our department between 2014 and 2015 were assessed with both the BSID-II and Bayley-III tests.
RESULTS
The mean Bayley-III Cognitive Language Composite (CLC) score was 5.8 points higher than the mean BSID-II Mental Developmental Index (MDI) score, and the mean Bayley-III Motor Composite (MC) score was 7.9 points higher than the mean BSID-II Psychomotor Developmental Index (PDI) score. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of a BSID-II MDI score < 70, Bayley-III CLC scores showed a cutoff of 78.0 (96.6% sensitivity and 93.9% specificity). In ROC analysis of a BSID-II PDI score < 70, the Bayley-III MC score showed a cutoff of 80.
CONCLUSION
There was a strong correlation between the BSID-II and Bayley-III in children with suspected developmental delay. The Bayley-III identified fewer children with developmental delay. The recommended cutoff value for developmental delay increased from a BSID-II score of 70 to a Bayley-III CLC score of 78 and Bayley-III MC score of 80.

Keyword

Developmental Disabilities; BSID-II; Bayley-III

MeSH Terms

Child Development
Child*
Developmental Disabilities
Humans
ROC Curve
Weights and Measures*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 BSID-II MDI scores versus Bayley-III combined CLC scores (n=41). The solid black line represents the regression line: BSID-II MDI = −13.495 + (1.096) × Bayley-III CLC. On the y-axis, the black line at 70.00 indicates the cutoff value for the BSID-II MDI: below this line, infants are classified as having developmental delay (−2 SD from the normal mean value of 100). On the x-axis, both 70.00 and 78.00 are marked with black lines. For more accurate estimation of the BSID-II MDI from the Bayley-III CLC, conversion equations from regression analysis can be applied. BSID-II, Bayley Scales of Infant Development second edition; MDI, Mental Developmental Index; CLC, Cognitive and Language Composite.

• 

  Fig. 2 BSID-II PDI scores versus Bayley-III MC scores (n=30). The solid black line represents the regression line: BSID-II PDI = 21.230 + (0.570) × Bayley-III MC. On the y-axis, the black line at 70.00 indicates the cutoff value for the BSID-II PDI: below this line, infants are classified as having developmental delay (−2 SD from the normal mean value of 100). On the x-axis, both 70.00 and 80.00 are marked with black lines. For more accurate estimation of the BSID-II PDI from the Bayley-III MC, conversion equations from regression analysis can be applied. BSID-II, Bayley Scales of Infant Development second edition; PDI, Psychomotor Developmental Index; MC, Motor Composite.

Reference

1. Lindsey JC, Brouwers P. Intrapolation and extrapolation of age-equivalent scores for the Bayley II: a comparison of two methods of estimation. Clin Neuropharmacol. 1999; 22:44–53. PMID: 10047934.

2. Johnson S, Marlow N. Developmental screen or developmental testing? Early Hum Dev. 2006; 82:173–183. PMID: 16504424.

3. Acton BV, Biggs WS, Creighton DE, Penner KA, Switzer HN, Thomas JH, et al. Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after early complex cardiac surgery. Pediatrics. 2011; 128:e794–e800. PMID: 21949148.

4. Anderson PJ, De Luca CR, Hutchinson E, Roberts G, Doyle LW. Victorian Infant Collaborative Group. Underestimation of developmental delay by the new Bayley-III Scale. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010; 164:352–356. PMID: 20368488.

5. Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development. 3rd ed. San Antonio: Pearson;2006.

6. Hilden J. The area under the ROC curve and its competitors. Med Decis Making. 1991; 11:95–101. PMID: 1865785.

7. Vohr BR, Stephens BE, Higgins RD, Bann CM, Hintz SR, Das A, et al. Are outcomes of extremely preterm infants improving? Impact of Bayley assessment on outcomes. J Pediatr. 2012; 161:222–228. PMID: 22421261.

8. Reuner G, Fields AC, Wittke A, Lopprich M, Pietz J. Comparison of the developmental tests Bayley-III and Bayley-II in 7-month-old infants born preterm. Eur J Pediatr. 2013; 172:393–400. PMID: 23224346.

9. Moore T, Johnson S, Haider S, Hennessy E, Marlow N. Relationship between test scores using the second and third editions of the Bayley Scales in extremely preterm children. J Pediatr. 2012; 160:553–558. PMID: 22048046.

10. Silveira RC, Filipouski GR, Goldstein DJ, O'Shea TM, Procianoy RS. Agreement between Bayley Scales second and third edition assessments of very low-birth-weight infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012; 166:1075–1076. PMID: 23007841.

11. Jary S, Whitelaw A, Walloe L, Thoresen M. Comparison of Bayley-2 and Bayley-3 scores at 18 months in term infants following neonatal encephalopathy and therapeutic hypothermia. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013; 55:1053–1059. PMID: 23927586.

12. Trahan LH, Stuebing KK, Fletcher JM, Hiscock M. The Flynn effect: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2014; 140:1332–1360. PMID: 24979188.

13. Lowe JR, Erickson SJ, Schrader R, Duncan AF. Comparison of the Bayley II Mental Developmental Index and the Bayley III Cognitive Scale: are we measuring the same thing? Acta Paediatr. 2012; 101:e55–e58. PMID: 22054168.

14. Bode MM, D'Eugenio DB, Mettelman BB, Gross SJ. Predictive validity of the Bayley, Third Edition at 2 years for intelligence quotient at 4 years in preterm infants. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2014; 35:570–575. PMID: 25370298.

15. Hajian-Tilaki K. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014; 48:193–204. PMID: 24582925.