METHODS: Twenty-nine children in each group, matched for age, sex and ethnicity, were assessed using the Glasgow outcome Scale (GOS), Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III), Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement ABC), Wide Range Assessment of Learning and Memory (WRAML) and a standardised neurological examination 6 months post-injury. Parental reporting of pre- and post-injury behaviour was documented using the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL).
RESULTS: Seven (24.1%) children with sCHI and three (10.3%) orthopaedic controls had residual motor deficits. Three (10.3%) children with sCHI and none in the other groups faced problems with independent ambulation. Twenty-seven (93.1%) of those with sCHI and all children in the other groups had GOS scores of good recovery or moderate disability. Twenty-two (81.5%) sCHI, five (18.5%) mCHI and one (3.7%) orthopaedic control reported a deterioration in school performance. MANOVAS identified a significant injury group effect for performance skills (P = 0.007), verbal skills (P = 0.002), memory and learning (P = 0.001) and motor skills (P = 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA for pre- and post-injury CBCL scores showed significant differences related to somatic complaints (P = 0.004), problems of socialising (P = 0.003), delinquency (P = 0.004), aggressiveness (P = 0.010), thought (P < 0.001) and attention (P < 0.001). Post-hoc univariate analysis showed the significant differences were between that of the sCHI children and the other two groups.
CONCLUSION: Although most sCHI children seemed to have made good physical recovery, there were cognitive, motor, memory and learning difficulties and behavioural problems concomitant with a deterioration in school performance compared with those with lesser or no head injury. This highlights the need for better integrated rehabilitation services to enable a gradual return into mainstream school.
METHODS: Using data from a random population sample of noninstitutionalized Chinese, Malay, and Indian older adults 60 years old and older in Singapore (N = 1072), we modeled the dimensional structure of the 8-item IADL Scale using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and assessed its convergent and divergent validity using known group differences and strengths of association.
RESULTS: Factor analyses yielded two strong and reliable factors representing underlying physical and cognitive dimensions of IADL. The validity of the model was supported by the pattern of associations of the IADL with age, gender, education, self-reported health status, hospitalization, physical comorbidities, dementia and depression, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. Notably, cognitive IADL showed a greater total effect on MMSE cognitive performance score than did physical IADL, with the effect of physical IADL on MMSE score mostly explained by cognitive IADL. Reasonably good cross-cultural validity was demonstrated among Chinese, Malays, and Indians, with strongest validity for Indians.
CONCLUSION: The eight-item IADL Scale has physical and cognitive domains and is cross-culturally applicable. The cognitive IADL domain taps a set of activities directly related to cognitive functioning.