Boy/Girl Differences in Risk for Reading Disability: Potential Clues?

Jennifer L. St. Sauver1, Slavica K. Katusic1, William J. Barbaresi2, Robert C. Colligan3 and Steven J. Jacobsen1

1 Department of Health Sciences Research, S—ection of Clinical Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN.
2 Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN.
3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Division of Psychology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The authors conducted a case-control study to determine whether risk factors for reading disability (RD) differentially affect boys and girls. The study population included all children born between 1976 and 1982 in Olmsted County, Minnesota (n = 5,701). A total of 303 RD cases were identified by using intelligence quotient and achievement test scores collected from school and medical records. After excluding those who met exclusion criteria (n = 869), controls consisted of all children not identified with RD (n = 4,529). The authors examined the association between RD and potential risk factors in boys and girls and confirmed their results in multivariable logistic regression models. Multivariable models indicated that girls of low birth weight were more than twice as likely to be identified as RD (odds ratio (OR) = 2.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09, 6.25). Girls whose mothers had 12 or fewer years of education were twice as likely to be identified as RD (OR = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24, 3.72). However, girls whose fathers were aged 35 years or older at the time of birth were less likely to be identified as RD (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.92). Only 12 or fewer years of paternal education was associated with increased RD in boys (OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.59, 3.27). Boys and girls appear to be differentially susceptible to RD risk factors, suggesting that the biologic processes leading to RD may differ between boys and girls.

case-control studies; dyslexia; educational status; learning disorders; risk factors

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IQ, intelligence quotient; LD, learning disability; OR, odds ratio; RCDIM, Reading Center/Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota; RD, reading disability; SES, socioeconomic status


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Learning disabilities (LDs) are childhood disorders affecting 4–5 percent of all school-age children (1Go, 2Go). Children with LD experience difficulties in mastering reading, writing, and/or mathematics skills despite having normal intellectual abilities. Reading disability (RD) is the most common type of LD, accounting for approximately 80–90 percent of all diagnosed LD cases (1Go, 2Go). Children who are not recognized and treated for RD early in their academic careers are at high risk for a variety of adverse personal and social consequences, including low self-esteem, early pregnancy, dropping out of school, and unemployment (3Go, 4Go).

A wide range of biologic and socioeconomic risk factors for both LD and RD have been identified previously. Male sex, in particular, has been consistently identified as a strong risk factor. It is not clear whether male children are biologically predisposed to developing LD (RD in particular) or whether male children are more commonly diagnosed due to referral bias (5GoGo–7Go). Other factors, including low birth weight, young maternal age, low maternal education level, illegitimacy, and minority race or ethnicity, have also been associated with an increased risk for school difficulties in general and RD in particular (8GoGoGoGoGoGoGoGo–16Go).

No studies have attempted, however, to determine whether potential risk factors differentially affect male and female children. Several studies have indicated that many cognitive and neural processes systematically differ by sex in both humans and animal models (17GoGo–19Go). It is therefore possible that the biologic processes that lead to RD are very different in male children compared with female children. Hence, currently identified risk factors may have different effects on male children compared with female children. For example, male children who are born into families of low socioeconomic status (SES) may be at a particularly high risk for RD, while female children who are born into families with low SES might not be at increased risk for RD.

To address these issues, we performed a post hoc analysis to determine whether potential LD risk factors differentially affect the risk for RD in boys compared with girls in a large, population-based cohort of Olmsted County, Minnesota, schoolchildren.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Identification of the Rochester birth cohort
All children (n = 8,548) born between January 1, 1976 and December 31, 1982 to mothers residing in the five Olmsted County, Minnesota, townships (comprising Minnesota Independent School District 535) were identified through computerized birth certificate information obtained from the Minnesota Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics. To ascertain vital status for each member of the birth cohort during the 1995–1996 school year, resources available from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (20Go), Independent School District 535, the Reading Center/Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota (RCDIM), and the Minnesota Department of Health were utilized. Current status was assessed for all children (still living in Olmsted County, moved, or deceased). Children who no longer lived in Olmsted County during the 1995–1996 school year (who moved or died before age 5 years) were not included in the final study cohort (n = 2,847).

Case definition
All public and private school records, medical records, and records from the RCDIM were accumulated, and a research folder was established for every child remaining in the birth cohort (n = 5,701). We first reviewed the school records of all of the children in our birth cohort, looking for any evidence of concern about problems in school learning or school performance. Evidence of a school problem included obvious signs of school difficulty, such as grade retention, presence of a special education learning plan (Chapter I, Title I, or Individualized Education Program), or other supplemental instruction. School records were also carefully examined for subtle signs of learning problems, including any notation indicating that teachers, parents, or anyone else had concerns about the child's school or learning performance.

Since it was possible that some of the children in our cohort may have had learning difficulties that were never recorded in the school record, we also searched the medical records of all the children for any indication of concern about school problems. The interdisciplinary assessments in the medical system were completed by pediatricians, psychologists, and psychiatrists who specialize in the identification of learning disabilities and behavioral problems. We also searched the records of a local reading center because use of the center by a member of our cohort would imply concern about a learning problem.

These procedures yielded 1,471 children (26 percent of our birth cohort) who had ever used the reading center or who had some indication in their school or medical records of any type of learning problem. We then abstracted all of these children's individually administered intelligence quotient (IQ) and achievement test scores and applied four ability-achievement discrepancy methods to classify each potential RD candidate. The magnitude of the discrepancy between expected and observed reading performance was determined by four formulas: a regression formula used by the state of Minnesota (21Go); the regression formula proposed by Shaywitz et al. (22Go); a standard-score discrepancy-based formula (S. K. Katusic, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, unpublished manuscript); and a method based solely on low achievement (22GoGo–24Go). Seventeen of the children in the cohort were severely mentally retarded, and these children were excluded from all analyses. If a child was identified as having RD by any of the four formulas and if the RD was not associated with exclusionary criteria described in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act definition of a learning disability (25Go), that child was classified as having "pure" RD (table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Number and percent of children with reading disabilities excluded from the "pure" reading disability classification due to the presence of comorbid conditions, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976–1982

 
Control definition
All children in the birth cohort who had neither pure RD nor any of the exclusionary criteria described in table 1 made up the control group (n = 4,529).

Exposure ascertainment
Demographic characteristics, health of the infant at birth, complications of pregnancy, and characteristics of birth injuries or problems during labor or delivery were abstracted from the birth certificates of all children in the cohort. This included race of the child, mother, and father; estimated gestational age at birth; birth weight; and whether or not the child was born to a single parent. Specific medical diagnostic codes were collected for indication of induction or augmentation of labor, mode of delivery, and any operative procedures. In addition, the presence of pregnancy-induced hypertension and gestational diabetes was noted. Continuous variables (parental age and education level, child's birth weight, and gestational age) were categorized according to cutpoints suggested by the literature.

Statistical analysis
The distribution of potential risk factors in children with RD was compared with that of risk factors among children not diagnosed with RD by using chi-square tests. The strength of the association between each potential risk factor and RD was estimated by odds ratios and corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals separately for male and female children. The Breslow-Day test was used to determine whether odds ratios differed significantly by sex. Multi-variable logistic regression models containing the factors significantly associated with RD in univariate analyses were created separately for boys and girls to determine whether factors significant in the univariate analyses remained so after adjustment for other variables. In addition, a multivariate logistic regression model that included all significant variables from univariate analyses, sex, and significant interaction terms from univariate analyses was created, allowing us to assess the significance of the interaction terms after adjustment for potential confounders. The Hosmer-Lemeshow method was used to determine goodness-of-fit of the logistic models. All calculated p values were two-sided; p values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals that did not include 1.00 were also considered to be statistically significant.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There were 8,548 children born in the four Olmsted County, Minnesota, townships between 1976 and 1982. Approximately one third of this population moved out of Olmsted County by age 5 years, leaving 5,701 children (2,951 boys and 2,750 girls) as the subjects for this study. These children lived in Olmsted County, moved after age 5 years, or died after age 5. A total of 116 children were identified as having RD by the Minnesota school regression formula, 149 by the Shaywitz regression formula, 212 by the discrepancy formula, and 241 by the low-achievement method. Taken together, 303 (5.3 percent) children were identified as having RD by any of the four formulas. Since these results were in the same direction and of approximately the same magnitude, regardless of the formula used, we report the results on the children identified as having RD by any of the four formulas. Our final control group consisted of 4,529 children, after exclusion of those who met exclusion criteria (n = 869).

Overall, children with RD were significantly more likely to be male (chi-square p = 0.001) and be born to younger mothers (chi-square p = 0.05) (table 2). They were also significantly more likely to have mothers or fathers with lower education levels compared with children who did not have RD (chi-square p = 0.001; table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Distribution of potential risk factors in reading disabled and non-reading-disabled children, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976–1982

 
When risk factors for RD were examined separately for male and female children, low maternal and low paternal education was associated with RD in both boys and girls (table 3). In addition, among female children, low birth weight and being born a twin were associated with over a threefold increase in RD. However, paternal age greater than age 35 years was associated with more than a fourfold decrease in RD (table 3). Breslow-Day tests indicated that low birth weight, being born a twin, high paternal age, and low maternal education differed significantly by sex.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals predicting reading disability in male children and female children, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976–1982

 
Girls with low birth weight were about 3.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with RD compared with girls of normal birth weight (odds ratio (OR) = 3.52, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.81, 6.85). In addition, boys of either normal or low birth weight were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with RD compared with girls of normal birth weight (OR = 2.81, 95 percent CI: 2.15, 2.68 and OR = 2.42, 95 percent CI: 1.14, 5.16, respectively) (data not shown in tables). The odds of RD among girls of low birth weight, boys of normal birth weight, and boys of low birth weight did not differ significantly.

In a multivariable model evaluating factors associated with RD in girls, low birth weight, low maternal education, and low paternal age remained significantly associated with RD. However, only low paternal education remained significantly associated with RD in boys (table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals generated from multivariable logistic regression models predicting reading disability separately in boys and girls, Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976–1982

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Our results suggest that male and female children are differentially susceptible to risk factors for RD. First, male children had a 2.5-fold higher risk of RD compared with female children. Second, female children of low birth weight were at a 3.5-fold increased risk for RD, but low birth weight did not increase the risk for RD in male children. Finally, these data also suggest that sociodemographic factors, such as paternal age and parental education level, differentially affect the risk for RD in girls compared with boys. High paternal age decreased the risk for RD in girls but not in boys. Low maternal education level increased the risk for RD in girls but not in boys, while low paternal education level increased the risk for RD in boys but not in girls.

Sex
The reasons for the increased educational and developmental problems experienced by male compared with female children are unclear, but male children are diagnosed with a wide range of neurodevelopmental disorders more often than are female children (26Go, 27Go). Shaywitz et al. (7Go) have reported that teachers are more likely to refer boys than girls for special education testing, suggesting that referral bias accounts for gender differences in LD. Flannery et al. (5Go), indicate, however, that when referral bias is excluded from the study design, boys are at least two times more likely to have RD compared with girls. In our study, children were identified as having RD by using information from three sources of data—school records, medical records, and records obtained from RCDIM—and applying research criteria for identifying RD. Because we abstracted preexisting data, it is possible that our results could have been biased due to more frequent referral of boys for IQ and achievement testing. However, our data suggest that the boys in our birth cohort were not differentially referred for testing at a higher rate than girls. In our study, 1,951 children were initially identified as having some type of school problem (1,196 boys and 755 girls). While more boys than girls were initially identified as having school problems, 498 girls and 847 boys received IQ and achievement testing (OR = 1.25, 95 percent CI: 0.82, 1.52). Among the children who were not initially identified as having a school problem (1,760 boys and 2,007 girls), 61 girls and 65 boys received IQ and achievement testing (OR = 1.22, 95 percent CI: 0.86, 1.74). Therefore, it seems less likely that referral bias is responsible for the increased rate of RD observed among male children compared with female children in this birth cohort.

Shaywitz et al. (17Go) have demonstrated that men and women differ in the areas of the brain that are activated during phonologic processing; men tend to activate the left inferior frontal gyrus of the brain, while women activate both the left and the right inferior frontal gyrus. Therefore, girls may be better able to compensate for a deficit in reading compared with boys. Alternatively, Galaburda and Geschwind (6Go) have suggested that elevated fetal testosterone levels are responsible for the increased number of school problems observed among boys.

Low birth weight
Previous studies have indicated that children of low birth weight (less than 2,500 g) are at risk for a wide variety of health and developmental problems (8GoGoGoGoGo–13Go, 16Go, 28Go). No previous studies have, however, described a differential effect of birth weight on RD among male and female children. It is unclear why low birth weight would more strongly predispose female children than male children toward RD. Overall, while low birth weight increased the risk for RD in girls, it increased the risk only to about the level typically experienced by male children of normal birth weight. Therefore, the effect of low birth weight may not be as noticeable in boys because boys already have a higher baseline rate of RD.

Altogether, 249 children in our cohort met the criteria for low birth weight (weight <2,500 g). We examined this group by sex to determine whether boys of low birth weight were more likely to experience other learning problems that might exclude them from the pure RD classification by using the Fisher's exact test. We found that boys of low birth weight were more likely to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder compared with girls (11.5 vs. 0.9 percent; p < 0.01), but did not significantly differ from girls in any other category. In addition, our results remained the same regardless of whether or not these children were included in our analyses (data not shown). Therefore, the observed sex differences do not appear to be due to differential exclusion of boys from the pure RD classification.

Sociodemographic variables
Our data also suggest that sociodemographic factors predispose girls and boys to RD. For example, we found that low parental education level was associated with an overall increased risk of LD for both boys and girls. Parental education is frequently used as a marker for SES (29Go), and low SES has frequently been demonstrated to be an important risk factor for later school difficulties (11Go, 13Go, 30Go, 31Go). It is not clear, however, how SES exerts its effect on the development of RD. Low SES may be a marker for parental educational difficulties (i.e., suggesting a genetic component in RD development), or it may be a marker for specific environmental factors.

Overall, while low maternal and paternal education increased the risk for RD in both boys and girls, our data suggest that low parental education affected male and female children differentially. In multivariable models, low maternal education level was a significant risk factor for RD in girls, but not in boys, while low paternal education was a significant risk factor for RD in boys, but not in girls. A significant interaction was observed only between sex and maternal education. Previous studies have suggested that maternal education tends to predict a daughter's educational attainment (32Go, 33Go). In addition, having female teachers as role models also predicts increased educational attainment in girls, but not in boys (34Go). These studies suggest that socialization patterns for girls differ from those of boys and that appropriate female role models may improve girls' academic achievement. By analogy, appropriate parental male role models may improve boys' academic achievement. These factors may also be important in our study population and may explain why, in our birth cohort, low maternal education is a risk factor for RD in girls, while low paternal education is a risk factor for RD in boys.

Higher paternal age (35 years or older) was associated with decreased RD in girls but not in boys. Older paternal age was modestly correlated with higher paternal education level (correlation coefficient = 0.28; p = 0.0001). It is possible that older, more educated fathers may make more of an effort to participate in their daughters' education compared with younger, less educated fathers.

Strengths and weaknesses
We thoroughly reviewed all medical and school records and independently determined whether or not a child had RD. This process allowed us to minimize some of the referral bias that may be present in studies in which the samples were derived from teacher or parent referral. In addition, our study had a substantially larger sample size than did most previous studies of LD, allowing us to consider interactions of potential risk factors with child's sex.

A potential limitation of our study is that 33 percent of the original birth cohort migrated from Olmsted County by age 5 years. If the children who migrated from Olmsted County differed significantly in birth characteristics and/or in incidence of RD, our study results may be biased. Katusic et al. (35Go) addressed this issue and demonstrated that few differences in birth characteristics existed between migrant and nonmigrant children. Of the observed differences, none is likely to be of concern for evaluating potential RD risk factors.

Because we examined 20 potential RD risk factors, it is also possible that an alpha level of 0.05 was not sufficiently stringent for defining statistical significance. Thus, to protect against type I error, a p value of 0.003 or less might have been more appropriate (36Go). However, most of our reported associations (low paternal education in boys and low maternal education and low birth weight in girls) achieved this level of significance in univariate models (table 2), so we believe it is unlikely that our results were due to type I error.

We used birth certificate data as our source for potential risk factor information. Previous studies have demonstrated that much of the information captured on birth certificates is valid and reliable, particularly that on birth weight and maternal and paternal demographic characteristics (37GoGo–39Go). Other data, such as pregnancy, labor, and delivery complications, tend to be underreported on birth certificates (37GoGoGo–40Go). Therefore, it is possible that some complications among our study population were missed. If the children who were reading disabled had more complications of pregnancy, labor, and delivery than did children who were not reading disabled, we will underestimate the association between these complications and RD. If the children who were reading disabled had fewer pregnancy, labor, and delivery complications than children who were not reading disabled, we will overestimate the association between these complications and RD. However, we have no reason to believe that the quality of the birth certificate data varied by outcome or by sex. Further studies are needed to examine the association of other potential risk factors not included on birth certificates with RD. These include maternal smoking, use of drugs or alcohol, hypertension, other maternal health conditions, use of medications, pre- and perinatal child illnesses, and intrauterine growth retardation.

Because we did not test every child for RD, it is possible for our study results to be biased if boys and girls were differentially referred for testing. However, our data suggest that boys were not differentially referred for testing at a higher rate than girls in our study population. In our study, 1,951 children were initially identified as having some type of school problem (1,196 boys and 755 girls). While more boys than girls were initially identified as having school problems, 498 girls and 847 boys received individual IQ and achievement testing (OR = 1.25, 95 percent CI: 0.82, 1.52). Among the children who were not initially identified as having a school problem (1,760 boys and 2,007 girls), 61 girls and 65 boys received IQ and achievement testing (OR = 1.22, 95 percent CI: 0.86, 1.74). Thus, in our study population, boys seemed to be slightly (but not significantly) more likely to be referred for further testing, and these increases were probably not sufficient to appreciably affect our study findings.

Finally, because we did not test every child in our cohort for RD, it is also possible that we may have failed to identify some cases of RD. If we failed to identify approximately equal numbers of girls and boys, our results would under-estimate any associations that might truly exist and would be a conservative estimate of associations between risk factors and RD. It is also possible that we may have failed to identify more girls than boys as having RD. However, sensitivity analyses suggest that our observed male-female differences were not due to unidentified RD cases among girls. By applying our observed incidence rate among boys (2.16/1,000 person-years, using the most conservative method for RD identification—the Minnesota regression formula) to the total number of person-years among the girls (39,556.65 person-years), if the risk for RD was equal in boys and girls, we would predict 85.3 RD cases among the girls. Because we identified 26 cases among the girls (by the Minnesota regression formula), we would have needed to miss at least 59 (69 percent) RD children among the remaining girls in the cohort without missing any additional cases among the remaining boys. We believe this is highly unlikely, given our efforts at complete ascertainment.

In conclusion, this study examines the interaction between sex and potential risk factors for RD. Our results suggest that boys and girls are significantly and differentially susceptible to potential risk factors for RD. Therefore, the biologic processes that lead to RD may be different for boys and girls. While further studies are needed to define how genetic, social, and other biologic factors may interact to contribute to the increased level of RD observed in male children compared with female children, our results suggest that boys and girls with RD may need to be considered separately in future RD studies.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Supported by research grants HD29745 and AR30582 from the Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.

The authors thank Susanne Daood, Amy Weaver, and Sarah Thieling for assistance with data analysis; Diane Siems, Study Coordinator, Candice Klein, and other members of the LD team for data collection; and Independent School District 535 and the Reading Center/Dyslexia Institute of Minnesota for their cooperation and collaboration.


    NOTES
 
Reprint requests to Dr. Slavica K. Katusic, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: katusic.slavica{at}mayo.edu).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Beitchman JH, Young AR. Learning disorders with a special emphasis on reading disorders: a review of the past 10 years. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36:1020–32.[ISI][Medline]
  2. Lyon GR. Learning disabilities. Future Child 1996;6:54–76.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Lyon GR. Research initiatives in learning disabilities: contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. J Child Neurol 1995;10(suppl 1):S120–6.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Maughan B. Annotation: long-term outcomes of developmental reading problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1995;36:357–71.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Flannery KA, Liederman J, Daly L, et al. Male prevalence for reading disability is found in a large sample of black and white children free from ascertainment bias. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2000;6:433–42.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Galaburda AM, Geschwind N. Cerebral lateralization, biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, 1987.
  7. Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA, Fletcher JM, et al. Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. JAMA 1990;264:998–1002.[Abstract]
  8. McCormick MC, Gortmaker SL, Sobol AM. Very low birth weight children: behavior problems and school difficulty in a national sample. J Pediatr 1990;117:687–93.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Saigal S, Szatmari P, Rosenbaum P, et al. Cognitive abilities and school performance of extremely low birth weight children and matched term control children at age 8 years: a regional study. J Pediatr 1991;118:751–60.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Saigal S, Rosenbaum P, Szatmari P, et al. Learning disabilities and school problems in a regional cohort of extremely low birth weight (less than 1000 g) children: a comparison with term controls. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1991;12:294–300.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Ramey CT, Stedman DJ, Borders-Patterson A, et al. Predicting school failure from information available at birth. Am J Ment Defic 1978;82:525–34.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Goldberg D, McLaughlin M, Grossi M, et al. Which newborns in New York City are at risk for special education placement? Am J Public Health 1992;82:438–40.[Abstract]
  13. Andrews H, Goldberg D, Wellen N, et al. Prediction of special education placement from birth certificate data. Am J Prev Med 1995;11:55–61.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Colletti LF. Relationship between pregnancy and birth complications and the later development of learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil 1979;12:659–63.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Saigal S, Szatmari P, Rosenbaum P. Can learning disabilities in children who were extremely low birth weight be identified at school entry? J Dev Behav Pediatr 1992;13:356–62.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Robertson CM, Finer NN, Grace MG. School performance of survivors of neonatal encephalopathy associated with birth asphyxia at term. J Pediatr 1989;114:753–60.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, et al. Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature 1995;373:607–9.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Kelly SJ, Ostrowski NL, Wilson MA. Gender differences in brain and behavior: hormonal and neural bases. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1999;64:655–64.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Lambe EK. Dyslexia, gender, and brain imaging. Neuropsycho-logia 1999;37:521–36.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Melton LJ 3rd. History of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc 1996;71:266–74.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Minnesota Department of Education. Rules of the State Board of Education. Chap 3425. Nichcy-News Digest 1992;1.
  22. Shaywitz BA, Fletcher JM, Holahan JM, et al. Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. J Learn Disabil 1992;25:639–48.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Fletcher JM, Shaywitz SE, Shankweiler DP, et al. Cognitive profile of reading disability: comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. J Educ Psychol 1994;86:6–23.[ISI]
  24. Stanovich KE, Siegel LS. Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities. A regression-based test of the phonological-core-variable-difference model. J Educ Psychol 1994;86:24–53.[ISI]
  25. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) Amendment of 1997. Public law 105–17. June 4, 1997:13.
  26. Abramowicz HK, Richardson SA. Epidemiology of severe mental retardation in children: community studies. Am J Ment Defic 1975;80:18–39.[ISI][Medline]
  27. Gualtieri T, Hicks RE. An immunoreactive theory of selective male affliction. In: Chess S, Thomas A, eds. Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel, Inc, 1987:221–58.
  28. Whitfield MF, Grunau RV, Holsti L. Extremely premature (< or = 800 g) schoolchildren: multiple areas of hidden disability. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1997;77:F85–90.[Medline]
  29. Entwisle DR, Astone NM. Some practical guidelines for measuring youth's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Dev 1994;65:1521–40.[ISI]
  30. Siegel LS. Detection of learning disabilities in infancy using a risk index. Birth Defects Orig Arctic Ser 1989;25:119–26.[Medline]
  31. Resnick MB, Gueorguieva RV, Carter RL, et al. The impact of low birth weight, perinatal conditions, and sociodemographic factors on educational outcome in kindergarten. Pediatrics 1999;104:e74.[Medline]
  32. Rosen BC, Aneshensel CS. Sex differences in the educational-occupational expectation process. Soc Forces 1978;57:164–86.[ISI]
  33. Treiman DJ, Terrell K. Sex and the process of status attainment: a comparison of working women and men. Am Sociol Rev 1975;40:174–200.[ISI]
  34. Nixon LA, Robinson MD. The educational attainment of young women: role model effects of female high school faculty. Demography 1999;36:185–94.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Katusic SK, Colligan RC, Barbaresi WJ, et al. Potential influence of migration bias in birth cohort studies. Mayo Clin Proc 1998;73:1053–61.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Motulsky H. Intuitive biostatistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
  37. Reichman NE, Hade EM. Validation of birth certificate data. A study of women in New Jersey's Head Start program. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11:186–93.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Buescher PA, Taylor KP, Davis MH, et al. The quality of the new birth certificate data: a validation study in North Carolina. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1163–5.[Abstract]
  39. Piper JM, Mitchel EF, Snowden M, et al. Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:758–68.[Abstract]
  40. Dobie SA, Baldwin LM, Rosenblatt RA, et al. How well do birth certificates describe the pregnancies they report? The Washington State experience with low risk pregnancies. Matern Child Health J 1998;2:145–54.[Medline]
Received for publication February 14, 2000. Accepted for publication June 26, 2001.





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by St. Sauver, J. L.
Articles by Jacobsen, S. J.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by St. Sauver, J. L.
Articles by Jacobsen, S. J.