Institutionalization, Romanian Adoptions and Executive Functioning

Groza, Victor; Ryan, Scott D.; Thomas, Sara

doi:10.1007/s10560-008-0120-6

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the 51% response rate is lower than the 66% of one of the largest international adoption follow‐ups (Gunnar et al, 2007) but higher than the 28–36% of the largest follow‐up of children adopted from Romania (Groza, Ryan, & Thomas, 2008). Responders and non‐responders did not differ significantly in the child’s mean age at adoption (15.61 vs. 16.65 months; t (988) = 1.07, ns ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…PI children adopted at older ages after more prolonged institutional deprivation often have higher rates of cognitive, behavioral, and social problems (MacLean, 2003). Likewise, age at adoption effects have been found for children’s performance on EF tasks (Colvert et al, 2008) and parent and teacher ratings of child EF (Groza et al, 2008; Jacobs et al, 2010), although some results have been non‐significant or inconsistent (Bos et al, 2009; Pollak et al, 2010), perhaps because the PI groups in these studies were restricted to children adopted after 9–12 months of age.…”

Section: Age At Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…PI children between the ages of 6 and 11 perform poorly on EF lab tasks relative to children reared in their biological families and to children adopted at young ages from non‐institutional settings, specifically with respect to working memory (Bauer, Hanson, Pierson, Davidson, & Pollak, 2009; Bos, Fox, Zeanah, & Nelson, 2009; Pollak et al, 2010), inhibitory control (Colvert et al, 2008; Pollak et al, 2010), planning, and set‐shifting (Bauer et al, 2009). However, few studies have examined whether these deficits are similarly reflected in parent ratings of PI children’s everyday behavior (Groza, Ryan, & Thomas, 2008; Jacobs, Miller, & Tirella, 2010). For example, PI children were found to score poorly on an inhibitory control composite, which included parent ratings of inhibitory control and several performance‐based measures, relative to children adopted at young ages from non‐institutional settings (Bruce, Tarullo, & Gunnar, 2009).…”

Section: Executive Functioning In Post‐institutionalized (Pi) Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Parent ratings of executive functioning in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions

Merz

McCall

2010

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Previous studies have found that post-institutionalized (PI) children are particularly susceptible to attention problems and perform poorly on executive functioning (EF) lab tasks. Methods Parent ratings of EF were examined in 288 school-age and 130 preschool-age children adopted from psychosocially depriving Russian institutions that provided adequate physical resources but not one-on-one interactions with a consistent set of responsive caregivers. Results Results revealed a step-like association between age at adoption and EF deficits; school-age children adopted after 18 months of age had greater EF difficulties than younger-adopted children and the never-institutionalized normative sample. The onset of adolescence was associated with a greater increase in EF deficits for children adopted after 18 months than for younger-adopted children. Preschool-age children were not found to have greater EF difficulties than the normative sample. Conclusions These findings suggest that prolonged early psychosocial deprivation may increase children's risk of EF deficits and that the developmental stresses of adolescence may be particularly challenging for older-adopted PI children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Age At Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Executive Functioning In Post‐institutionalized (Pi) Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parent ratings of executive functioning in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions

Merz

McCall

2010

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One study found no differences compared with a normative sample in adopted preschool children aged 2-5 y (14), whereas another found that 11% of children aged 4-5 y had EF problems in the clinical range according to parent ratings (34). The third study did not include a comparison group (35); thus, the authors were only able to conclude that parents of PI children reported more EF problems than teachers did. Observational laboratory studies are needed to clarify whether EF performance is lower in this group and can be detected in this age range.…”

Section: Ef In Postinstitutionalized Childrenmentioning

confidence: 97%

Associations between early life adversity and executive function in children adopted internationally from orphanages

Hostinar

Stellern

Schaefer

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

200

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive function (EF) abilities are increasingly recognized as an important protective factor for children experiencing adversity, promoting better stress and emotion regulation as well as social and academic adjustment. We provide evidence that early life adversity is associated with significant reductions in EF performance on a developmentally sensitive battery of laboratory EF tasks that measured cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control. Animal models also suggest that early adversity has a negative impact on the development of prefrontal cortex-based cognitive functions. In this study, we report EF performance 1 y after adoption in 2.5-to 4-y-old children who had experienced institutional care in orphanages overseas compared with a group of age-matched nonadopted children. To our knowledge, this is the youngest age and the soonest after adoption that reduced EF performance has been shown using laboratory measures in this population. EF reductions in performance were significant above and beyond differences in intelligence quotient. Within the adopted sample, current EF was associated with measures of early deprivation after controlling for intelligence quotient, with less time spent in the birth family before placement in an institution and lower quality of physical/social care in institutions predicting poorer performance on the EF battery.I t has been argued that early experiences have an impact on neurobehavioral development, for good or ill, and thus influence lifelong health and disease (1). The search for protective processes in the individual that may reduce the impact of early adversity has begun to identify executive functions (EFs) as one candidate domain for intervention (2). EFs are a set of higher order cognitive processes that allow individuals to engage in planning and conscious, goal-directed problem solving (3). In children, EF is related to emotion regulation (4), conscience and moral development (5, 6), and math and literacy ability in kindergarten (7), and it is also predictive of later social and academic competence (8, 9). It is believed that EF may play an especially important role in adverse circumstances because of its role in balancing emotional arousal and cognitive processing (10). Thus, understanding the development of EF in children who experience early adversity may provide avenues for promoting their resilience.Unfortunately, this factor that could help buffer children living in adverse rearing environments has also been shown to be impaired in these children. For instance, there is accumulating evidence that psychosocial deprivation in the form of being raised in an institution is associated with reduced performance in a variety of EF domains assessed years after adoption into an enriched family environment (11-15). Studies of children experiencing early adversity cannot definitively attribute reduced EF performance to their early experiences because of their frequent coexposure to multiple other prenatal and postnatal risk factors that stunt physical g...

show abstract

“…In the few studies of parent- or teacher-rated EF in everyday contexts, PI children had greater EF difficulties than children reared in their biological families (Bruce, Tarullo, & Gunnar, 2009; Groza, Ryan, & Thomas, 2008; Jacobs, Miller, & Tirella, 2010; Merz & McCall, 2011). PI children’s EF task performance was significantly associated with parent-rated EF (Bruce et al, 2009) and with parent- and teacher-rated attention problems (Colvert et al, 2008; Stevens et al, 2008).…”

Section: Executive Functioning In Post-institutionalized Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent-Reported Executive Functioning in Postinstitutionalized Children: A Follow-Up Study

Merz

McCall

Groza

2013

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study compared parent-rated executive functioning (EF) in 6- to 18-year-old children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions to that in children adopted from severely or “globally” depriving institutions. Individual continuity in EF over two years was examined in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions. Method There were 471 children adopted from psychosocially depriving Russian institutions which provided adequate physical resources but failed to provide a consistent set of responsive caregivers. There were 111 children adopted in the early 1990s from globally depriving Romanian institutions which were characterized by physical deprivation as well as profound psychosocial neglect. Adoptive parents completed a background questionnaire and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Results Children adopted from globally depriving institutions had significantly higher levels of EF difficulties than children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions. For both groups, adoption after 18 months of age was associated with higher levels of EF difficulties. Children adopted from globally depriving institutions had higher levels of EF difficulties than the BRIEF standardization sample at younger ages at adoption. There was moderate to strong continuity in EF difficulties over two years in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions. Conclusions These findings suggest that more severe early deprivation may lead to a higher risk of later EF difficulties, which may persist over time.

show abstract

Institutionalization, Romanian Adoptions and Executive Functioning

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

Parent ratings of executive functioning in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions

Parent ratings of executive functioning in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions

Associations between early life adversity and executive function in children adopted internationally from orphanages

Parent-Reported Executive Functioning in Postinstitutionalized Children: A Follow-Up Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About