225
VI. INSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION, SPECIFIC COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS
AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT: ERA STUDY FINDINGS
by Celia Beckett*, Jenny Castle*, Michael Rutter* and Edmund J. Sonuga-Barke
*joint first authorship
<H1> Introduction
Whereas meta-analyses of cross-sectional adoption studies have indicated that there
is an impact of early deprivation on adoptee’s cognitive ability, these effects generally
diminish markedly after upbringing in adoptive homes (van IJzendoorn, Juffer & Poelhis.,
2005; van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2006). Outcomes in terms of scholastic attainment were
not quite so positive in a cross-sectional meta-analysis (van IJzendoorn et al., 2005), but the
Swedish follow-up study of male conscripts did not find that scholastic attainment was
impaired relative to IQ (Dalen et al., 2008; Lindblad, Dalen, Ramussen, Vinnerljung &
Hjern, 2009). Longitudinal studies of adoptees experiencing extreme early deprivation
have shown that the initial effects are especially marked, with cognitive deficit followed by
substantial (but incomplete) cognitive recovery (Beckett et al., 2006; MacLean, 2003).
Both initial impairment and catch-up vary as a function of the length and severity of
deprivation experienced (Beckett et al., 2006; O’Connor et al., 2000; Rutter et al., 1998).
Previous analyses of the ERA data patterns of educational attainment at age 11 indicated
that these were largely predictable on the basis of cognitive ability (Beckett et al., 2007),
although symptoms of inattention also played a minor role.
The published studies have been limited by the lack of longitudinal data. The
current analysis extends the previous findings to include cognitive development at 15
226
together with independently adjudicated educational attainment in public examinations.
The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations are normally taken
in the UK during the academic year when a young person reaches 16 years of age. IQ was
still expected to be the major influence on performance in GCSE examinations; however, it
was also considered that other factors, including child behavioral characteristics, might also
have a bearing. For example, it might be expected that young people with postulated
deprivation-specific patterns (DSPs - see chapter 3; Kumsta, Kreppner, Rutter et al.) might
score lower in public examinations than predicted by their IQ alone.
In addition, scholastic attainment could be influenced by the degree of initial
impairment and by subsequent catch-up in cognitive development. The children adopted
from Romania with the most marked degree of cognitive impairment had displayed the
most improvement over time at age 11 (Beckett et al, 2006). Nevertheless, it was not clear
whether this improvement would continue and be translated into performance in public
examinations at 16 years of age.
IQ scores are likely to be the primary factor influencing exam results, but there may
also be underlying specific difficulties that could be expected to contribute to poor exam
performance. Other studies of inter country adoptees have suggested that there may be a
general recovery in IQ for the majority of the children studied, but within this group there
may be specific deficits in social cognition, memory and executive functioning (Behen,
Helder, Rothermel, Soloman & Chugani, 2008). Whether specific skills play a role in an
individual’s performance in public examinations is also examined here. Evidence of an
association among executive functioning, memory and mathematical and reading skills has
been shown in various studies (Andersson, 2008; Hughes & Ensor, 2008; Garon, Bryson &
227
Smith, 2008). However, it remains unclear how much specific impairments associated with
early insult or experiences influence educational outcomes (e.g., in the profile of non-
verbal impairment, or specific reading difficulties) (Hulme & Snowling, 2009).
<H2> Specific Cognitive Features
The literature (both conceptual and empirical) on specific cognitive functions has
been concerned with several quite different issues. First, there have been the debates over
the validity (or otherwise), and the meaning of, a general factor of overall intelligence ‘g’
(see Bock, Goode & Webb, 2000). On the one hand, Jensen (1998) and Lubinski (2000),
among many others, have argued very strongly for the reality and importance of ‘g’. On
the other hand, others such as Gardner (1993) and Sternberg (1988) have argued for
multiple separate cognitive functions. Gardner’s seven ‘intelligences’ include functions
such as linguistic, logical, mathematical and spatial skills. Sternberg proposed a triachic
cognitive structure made up of analytic, creative, and practical intelligence. Both Baddeley
(1990) and Tulving (1983) have presented good evidence for different memory functions.
Many years ago, Hermelin and O’Connor (1970) showed the unusual pattern of cognitive
functioning associated with autism, and within autism, and Howlin, Goode, Hutton and
Rutter (2009) has shown the frequency of special cognitive talents in individuals with
autism. Similarly, it is clear that various genetic conditions tend to show characteristic
cognitive patterns, although variations in patterns within such conditions are rather greater
than was first realized (Skuse & Seigel, 2008). Therefore, it may be concluded that the
reality of ‘g’, and its biological importance, is not in doubt, but, equally, there can be no
doubt about the reality and importance of specific cognitive functions.
228
The second key issue is whether these specific cognitive functions are regularly
associated with different types of scholastic performance (see Hulme & Snowling, 2009;
Snowling & Hulme, 2008). Although comparative studies are largely lacking, a degree of
specificity is evident. Thus, reading difficulties are particularly associated with
phonological (speech) processing deficits. However, both visual (Stein & Talcott, 1999)
and auditory (Mody, 2003; Tallal, 1980) deficits have been claimed by some to be
additionally relevant, although the evidence in support is more equivocal than with
phonological processing. Less is known about the cognitive functions associated with
arithmetic difficulties, but they appear to involve a complex interplay between nonverbal
and verbal cognitive systems, including working memory, speed of information processing,
executive skills, spatial skills and number sense (Rutter, 2000).
The evidence on the reality and importance of specific cognitive functions might
lead to an expectation that they could prove crucial in the ERA study, but there are two
other issues that lead to an opposite expectation. Over the years, there have been many
attempts to test the hypothesis that brain lesions would lead to specific cognitive patterns
that could be of diagnostic value. The results have been uniformly disappointing, whether
considered in relation to known brain damage (Rutter, 1981) or more diffuse concepts such
as ‘ minimal brain dysfunction’ (Rutter, 1981; Reitan & Boll, 1974). Claims were made in
the 1970s that quantitative computer analysis of EEG and sensory potentials (termed
‘neurometrics’) would serve to identify specific cognitive functions (John et al., 1977) but
this has not been confirmed. Modest group differences have been reported in some studies,
but they are too minor to be of much use for individual diagnosis. There is no
characteristic pattern of scores on the Wechsler scales (Conners, 1968), and no increase in
229
verbal-performance discrepancies (Paine, Werry & Quay, 1968). Moreover, batteries of
special cognitive tests do not do much better (Chadwick, Rutter, Shaffer & Shrout, 1981;
Knights & Tymchcuk, 1968). Neurological lesions are associated with considerable
cognitive pattern heterogeneity, however it is assessed (Bortner, 1979).
The other issue is that brain trauma in infancy and early childhood has effects that
differ markedly from acquired lesions in later childhood or adult life (see Rutter, 1982;
1993). Thus, the effects of left hemisphere damage on language functioning are quite
different in early life from those in later childhood and adult life (Alajounaine &
L’hermitte, 1965; Bates & Roe, 2001; Vargha-Khadem & Mishkin, 1997; Woods & Carey,
1979). It is not that brain lesions in early life have lesser effects (the so-called Kennard
[1942] principle); indeed the reverse is the case, but rather that the effects are less cognitive
function-specific. The question we sought to examine here was whether this applied to the
effects of profound early deprivation as experienced by the children adopted from
Romanian institutions.
<H2> Genetic and Environmental Influences
Twin studies of genetic and environmental influences suggest that the strong
genetic influence on intelligence is principally associated with stability in IQ, whereas
change over time may be more likely to reflect environmental influences (Kovas, Haworth,
Dale & Plomin, 2007). Where children have moved from an extremely disadvantaged
environment to another more beneficial one, such as happens in adoption, then any change
in development might be a consequence of the new environmental influences. However,
up until now, these issues have not been examined in the case of individuals suffering
profound institutional deprivation. Change may also be associated with differing school
