Cited by 144Child Welfare and AdoptionLanguage Development and DisordersChild Nutrition and Water Access

Postinstitutionalized Children’s Development: Growth, Cognitive, and Language Outcomes

Open access
Loman, Michelle M., Wiik, Kristen L., Frenn, Kristin A., Pollak, Seth D., Gunnar, Megan R.·2009·Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Children adopted internationally from institutions are a growing population presenting to professional care providers. Although postinstitutionalized (PI) children are adopted from multiple world regions, current knowledge is predominantly based on those adopted from Romania and Eastern European countries. This study examines and compares developmental outcomes of PI children adopted from multiple world regions. METHOD: Five to 11 years after adoption, 8- through 11-year-old PI children (N = 91), children internationally adopted early from foster care (N = 109), and nonadopted children (N = 69) completed screening measures assessing vision, hearing, growth, and cognitive and language abilities. Parents completed questionnaires on service utilization, school performance, preadoptive history, and postadoption environment. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of PI children's growth was stunted (height <10th percentile) at adoption. At assessment, although physically smaller, nearly all PI children had average growth parameters. Relative to nonadopted children and children adopted early from foster care, PI children performed more poorly on cognitive and language screens with increased time in institution related to lower performance. Notably, group means on these measures were within the average range. PI children were more likely to be falling behind academically and to use intervention services. Family environment did not differ between PI and nonadopted children. There were few differences for PI children by world region of adoption once accounting for duration of institutionalization. CONCLUSIONS: Despite currently living in similar environments, PI children have specific needs that differ from early-adopted and nonadopted children. Consideration of multiple factors, including length of institutionalization, is essential when providing care for these children.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/dbp.0b013e3181b1fd08

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Post-institutionalized children have lower IQ scores than children reared in biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings.

    “However, studies consistently find that PI children have significantly greater attention problems, lower IQ scores, greater likelihood of receiving learning support services, and lower reading and math achievement scores than children reared in their biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings (Fox, Almas, Degnan, Nelson, & Zeanah, 2011; Loman et al., 2009;”

    From Inhibitory control and working memory in post-institutionalized children (2013) · cites this paper as Loman et al., 2009

  • Post-institutionalized children have greater attention problems than children reared in biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings.

    “However, studies consistently find that PI children have significantly greater attention problems, lower IQ scores, greater likelihood of receiving learning support services, and lower reading and math achievement scores than children reared in their biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings (Fox, Almas, Degnan, Nelson, & Zeanah, 2011; Loman et al., 2009;”

    From Inhibitory control and working memory in post-institutionalized children (2013) · cites this paper as Loman et al., 2009

  • Post-institutionalized children have lower reading and math achievement scores than children reared in biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings.

    “However, studies consistently find that PI children have significantly greater attention problems, lower IQ scores, greater likelihood of receiving learning support services, and lower reading and math achievement scores than children reared in their biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings (Fox, Almas, Degnan, Nelson, & Zeanah, 2011; Loman et al., 2009;”

    From Inhibitory control and working memory in post-institutionalized children (2013) · cites this paper as Loman et al., 2009

  • Post-institutionalized children are more likely to receive learning support services than children reared in biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings.

    “However, studies consistently find that PI children have significantly greater attention problems, lower IQ scores, greater likelihood of receiving learning support services, and lower reading and math achievement scores than children reared in their biological homes and children adopted at young ages from non-institutional settings (Fox, Almas, Degnan, Nelson, & Zeanah, 2011; Loman et al., 2009;”

    From Inhibitory control and working memory in post-institutionalized children (2013) · cites this paper as Loman et al., 2009

  • Language delays are commonly observed in previously institutionalized children.

    “Language delays are commonly observed (Loman, Wiik, Frenn, Pollak, & Gunnar, 2009).”

    From Risk and developmental heterogeneity in previously institutionalized children (2012) · cites this paper as Loman, Wiik, Frenn, Pollak, & Gunnar, 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loman, M. M., Wiik, K. L., Frenn, K. A., Pollak, S. D., & Gunnar, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
  • Loman, Michelle M.
  • Wiik, Kristen L.
  • Frenn, Kristin A.
  • Gunnar, Megan R.
Venue
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
Published
2009-10
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
426-434
ISSN
0196-206X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169287938
Cited by
144
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 14
FWCI
24.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH068857, R01MH068858, R01MH061285)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
Keywords
international adoption, institutionalized children, growth arrest, cognitive development, language development, academic performance, service utilization, family environment, child development outcomes
MeSH terms
Adoption, Child, Child Development, Cognition, Environment, Female, Foster Home Care, Humans, Institutionalization, Language, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schools, Time Factors, Orphanages

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review