The impact of relative age effects on psychosocial development: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Within the same school class, it is usual to find children who differ in age by almost a full calendar year. Although associations between being relatively young and poor academic outcomes are well documented, and relatively consistent, the associations between being relatively young and psychosocial outcomes are less clearly documented. AIMS: To review research which presents data relating to associations between a child's relative age and their psychosocial development. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of the narrative synthesis and three meta-analyses found consistent, but very small, associations with relative age indicating that those who are relatively young are more likely to have more negative behaviour, mental well-being, and social experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Although being relatively young is associated with more negative psychosocial outcomes, the magnitude of these associations is consistently small. Furthermore, many of the outcome measures used are likely to be the result of multiple influences, not limited to the effects of relative age. Therefore, the findings are reassuring as they suggest that relative age itself is unlikely to substantially increase an individual's risk of poor psychosocial development.

Expressive drawing ability in children with autism.

The autistic impairments in emotional and social competence, imagination and generating ideas predict qualitative differences in expressive drawings by children with autism beyond that accounted by any general learning difficulties. In a sample of 60 5-19-year-olds, happy and sad drawings were requested from 15 participants with non-savant autism and compared with those drawn by three control groups matched on either degree of learning difficulty (MLD), mental age (MA) or chronological age (CA). All drawings were rated by two artists on a 7-point quality of expression scale. Contrary to our predictions, the drawings from the autistic group were rated similar to those of the MA and MLD groups. Analysis of the people and social content of the drawings revealed that although children with autism did not draw fewer people, they did draw more immature forms than mental age controls. Furthermore, there was tentative evidence that fewer social scenes were produced by the autism sample. We conclude that the overall merit of expressive drawing in autism is commensurate with their general learning difficulties, but the social/emotional impairment in autism affects their drawings of people and social scenes.

Rigidity in children's drawings and its relation with representational change.

Four studies tested the application of to the drawing domain. In particular, we tested her claim that young children are inhibited in their attempts at changing their graphic representations (representational change) due to being constrained by the order in which the elements of the representation are drawn (procedural rigidity). The first study required 60 children (4- to 6-year-olds and an older comparison group of 8-year-olds) to make three drawings of a familiar and novel topic. From these drawings each child was measured for procedural rigidity. In a further drawing the child was asked to modify their usual representation of each topic. Regression analyses revealed procedural rigidity levels were not predictive of manipulation performance. A second study, testing 75 4- to 6-year-olds and a third study, testing 30 3- to 4-year-olds, revealed that when young children were specifically asked to manipulate rigid sub-procedures on a familiar topic they were indeed able to do so. Finally, a fourth study (testing 40 5-year-olds and 40 8-year-olds) removed the notational trace in drawing (a possible aid for procedural interruption) but this still produced no evidence of a relation between procedural rigidity and representational change. We suggest how the concept of procedural rigidity might be re-interpreted for the drawing domain so that the RR model can remain as a domain-general theory of cognitive development. We also suggest the development of information processing may be crucial for flexibility in drawing.