The literature on children born prematurely has consistently shown that full-term babies outperform preterm babies by about 12 IQ points, even when tested as adolescents, and this advantage for full-term infants extends to the language and motor domains as well. The results of comprehensive meta-analyses suggest that the degree of prematurity greatly influences later test performance, but these inferences are based on data from an array of separate studies with no control of potential confounding variables such as age. This study analyzed Bayley-4 data for 66 extremely premature infants and toddlers (<32 weeks), 70 moderately premature children (32–36 weeks), and 133 full-term children. All groups were carefully matched on key background variables by the test publisher during the standardization of the Bayley-4. This investigation analyzed data on the five subtests: cognitive, expressive communication, receptive communication, fine motor, and gross motor. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) assessed for group mean differences across the three subsamples, while controlling for the children’s age. Extremely premature children scored significantly lower than moderately premature children on all subtests, and both preterm groups were significantly outscored by the full-term sample across all domains. In each set of comparisons, the cognitive and motor subtests yielded the largest differences, whereas language development, both expressive and receptive, appeared the least impacted by prematurity. A follow-up MANOVA was conducted to examine full-term versus preterm discrepancies on the five subtests for infants (2–17 months) vs. toddlers (18–42 months). For that analysis, the two preterm groups were combined into a single preterm sample, and a significant interaction between the age level and group (full-term vs. preterm) was found. Premature infants scored lower than premature toddlers on receptive communication, fine motor, and cognitive. Neither expressive communication nor gross motor produced significant discrepancies between age groups The findings of this study enrich the preterm literature on the degree of prematurity; the age-based interactions have implications for which abilities are most likely to improve as infants grow into toddlerhood.

The recent release of the WAIS-5, a decade and a half after its predecessor, the WAIS-IV, raises immediate questions about the Flynn effect (FE). Does the traditional FE of points per decade in the U.S. for children and adults, identified for the Full Scale IQs of all Wechsler scales and for other global IQ scores as well, persist into the 2020s? The WAIS-5 Technical and Interpretive Manual provides two counterbalanced validity studies that address the Flynn effect directly—N = 186 adolescents and adults (16–90 years, mean age = 47.8) tested on the WAIS-IV and WAIS-5; and N = 98 16-year-olds tested on the WISC-V and WAIS-5. The FE is incorporated into the diagnostic criteria for intellectual disabilities by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), by DSM-5-TR, and in capital punishment cases. The unexpected result of the two counterbalanced studies was a reduction in the Flynn effect from the expected value of 3 IQ points to 1.2 points. These findings raise interesting questions regarding whether the three point adjustment to FSIQs should be continued for intellectual disability diagnosis and whether the federal courts should rethink its guidelines for capital punishment cases and other instances of high stakes decision-making. Limitations include a lack of generalization to children, the impact of the practice effects, and a small sample size.

Background: There is a growing, global awareness and recognition of the important, interdependent relationships between our natural world and human health. Several contemporary health organizations have placed calls to action and emphasize an urgent need for collaboration and interdisciplinary research, education, and clinical work to address the increasing degradation of our planetary and human health. With more research dedicated to nature’s health impacts, health professions schools would benefit by including such training in their programs while also cultivating a comprehensive mind-body health perspective to support both the health of student practitioners and their future patients. Objective: The present program evaluation investigates a five-day outdoor mini-course covering nature-based health techniques at a medical and dental school in the American Northeast. This unique outdoor course combines nature, creativity, and reflection within the context of modern medicine. Methods: A concurrent mixed-method design using descriptive statistics, quantitative and qualitative data from students’ anonymous final course evaluations and final reflection projects are evaluated. Results: Data suggests that students benefitted from their experience during this five-day course. Students provided feedback reinforcing the enjoyment and transformative outcomes gleaned from the course experiences. Students entered the course describing feeling stressed, overwhelmed, and overextended, not uncommon for learners in medical and dental school, and completed the course describing the acquisition of applicable skills, increased attention and mindfulness, creativity, and connection to the natural world. Conclusions: Students described a positive experience of the course. Several areas of personal and professional development were also described, such as improvements within cognitive domains, enhanced connection with nature, others, and themselves, increased mindfulness, and overall improved well-being. Findings have implications for medical and dental programs on how such innovative training may lean into the work of nature-based care to provide for the whole person.