Self-Esteem of Adolescents Who Were Born Prematurely
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are any differences between the self-esteem of a cohort of adolescents who were extremely low birth weight (ELBW) in comparison with term controls (Cs); and to test the associations between self-esteem and several predefined predictor variables. BACKGROUND: Self-esteem is considered to play a significant role in psychological adjustment and scholastic success. Little information exists on how adolescents who were ELBW regard themselves. DESIGN/METHODS: Longitudinal follow-up of a regional cohort of 132/169 (78%) ELBW survivors and 127/145 (88%) sociodemographically matched Cs, born between 1977 and 1982. MEASURES: Harter Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (1988) with 9 dimensions, including Global Self-Worth, socioeconomic status (Hollingshead), height-for-age and weight-for-age z scores, and Wide Range Achievement Test---Revised (WRAT-R; Reading, Spelling, and Arithmetic). DATA ANALYSIS: General linear model multiple analyses of covariance were performed to determine whether significant relationships existed between the 9 self-esteem dimensions and the independent variables of birth weight status and gender, and the covariates of age, socioeconomic status, physical development, and academic achievement. RESULTS: Global Self Worth was similar for ELBW and Cs (means: 3.1 and 3.2). Multivariate effects revealed no interactions, but significant main effects emerged for birth weight status, gender, weight-for-age z scores, age in months, and for all 3 WRAT-R subtests, all effect sizes medium to large. Follow-up analysis of covariance revealed medium-size gender effects for athletic competence (means: 3.1 and 2.6), and physical appearance (means: 2.9 and 2.5), where boys rated themselves significantly higher on both domains; and age effects, where older teens rated themselves better for job competence. Significant but small effect sizes emerged for the following: 1) weight-for-age z scores, where heavier youth rated themselves higher on close friendships, 2) gender, where girls had higher ratings for close friendships, 3) birth weight, where Cs rated themselves higher on athletic competence, and 4) WRAT-R math effect, where children with higher math scores rated themselves better on scholastic competence. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ELBW teenagers do not differ significantly from C teenagers on most dimensions of self-esteem. Gender effects emerged on some Harter domains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".