To compare the psychosocial adjustment of children with and without hemifacial microsomia (HFM).
Design
This cross-sectional pilot study investigated psychosocial adjustment of twin pairs in which one twin was affected with HFM and the other was unimpaired. Data were analyzed using paired t tests.
Setting
The dental medicine clinic of a large urban children's hospital, serving a multistats area.
Participants
Participants were six twin pairs aged 9 to 15 years and their parents. Data were also collected from classroom teachers.
Main outcome Measures
Outcome measures included: the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), the Teacher Report Form (TRF), the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI), and a structured self-concept interview (the Self-Interview).
Results
Children with HFM had significantly higher CBCL and TRF total behavior problem scores and lower SEI general self-esteem scores than their unimpaired twins. No differences were found in CBCL competence scores. Interview data revealed concerns among the HFM group related to appearance, negative social responses, and fear of hospital procedures. Children also reported positive aspects of coping with HFM.
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that, similar to other craniofacial conditions, HFM is associated with an elevated risk for childhood psychosocial difficulties. Replication of specific findings with a larger sample is needed. Multicenter, collaborative studies are a crucial next step for this field.
AchenbachT.M.Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile.Burlington, VT: University of Vermont; 1991a.
2.
AchenbachT.M.Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and 1991 TRF Profile.Burlington, VT: University of Vermont; 1991b.
3.
AkermanB.A., FischbeinS.Twins: are they at risk? A longitudinal study of twins and nontwins from birth to 18 years of age.Ada Genet Med Gemellol1990; 40: 29–40.
4.
BerryL.A., WittP.D.Marsh JL. Pilgram TK. Eder RA. Personality attributions based on speech samples of children with repaired cleft palates.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1997; 34: 385–389.
5.
BroderH., StraussR.Self-concept of early primary school age children with visible or invisible defects.Cleft Palate J1989; 26: 114–117.
6.
CassidyJ.Theoretical and methodological considerations in the study of attachment and the self in young children. In: GreenbergMT., CicchettiD., CummingsE.M., eds, Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory. Research, and Intervention.Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990: 87–119.
EasterbrooksM.A., DavidsonC., ChazanR.Representations of self, mother, and attachment in children at high social risk. In: Vaughan BE, chair. Attachment and Self-Representation During Childhood and Early Adolescence. Symposium Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development; April 1991; Seattle. WA.
10.
EderR.Individual differences in young children's self-concepts: implications for children with cleft lip and palate. In: EderR. ed. Craniofacial Anomalies: Psychological Perspectives.New York: Springer-Verlag; 1995: 141–157.
11.
FahrenfortJ.J., JacobsE.A.M., MiedemaS.Schweizer AT. Signs of emotional disturbance three years after early hospitalization.J Pedriair Psychol1996; 21: 353–366.
12.
GjoneH., NovikT.Parental ratings of behaviour problems; a twin and general population comparison.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1995; 36: 1213–1224.
13.
GreshamM., ReschlyD.J.Social skill deficits and low peer acceptance of main-streamed learning disabled children.Learn Disabil Q1986; 9: 23–32.
14.
HollingsheadA.B.Four Factor Index of Social Status.New Haven, CT: Yale University;1975.
15.
HorganJ.E., PadwaB.L., LabrieR.A., MullikenJ.B.OMENS-Plus: analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1995; 32: 405–412.
16.
Kapp-SimonK.A.Self-concept of primary-school-age children with cleft lip. cleft palate, or both.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1986; 23: 24–27.
17.
Kapp-SimonK.A., McGuireD.E.Observed social interaction patterns in adolescents with and without craniofacial conditions.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1997; 34: 380–384.
18.
KendlerK.S.Twin studies of psychiatric illness: current status and future directions.Arch Gen Psychiatry1993; 50: 905–915.
19.
LangloisJ.H.The origins and functions of appearance-based stereotypes: theoretical and applied implications. In: EderR., ed. Craniofacial Anomalies: Psychological Perspectives.New York: Springer-Verlag;1995: 22–47.
20.
LefebvreA., BarclayS.Psychosocial impact of craniofacial deformities before and after reconstructive surgery.Can J Psychiatry1982; 27: 579–584.
21.
LeonardE., BrustJ.Abraham G, Sielaff B. Self concept of children and adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate.Cleft Palate J1991; 28: 347–353.
22.
LeondariA.Comparability of self-concept among normal achievers, low achievers and children with learning difficulties.Educ Stud1993; I9: 357–37.
23.
McKinneyJ.D.Longitudinal research on the behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities.J Learn Disahil1989; 22: 141–150.
24.
MunroI.R.A description of craniofacial anomalies: the mechanism and rationale of surgery. In: EderR., ed. Craniofacial Anomalies: Psychological Perspectives.New York: Springer-Verlag;1995: 3–21.
PadwaB.L., EvansC.A.Pillemer FC. Psychosocial adjustment in children with hemifacial microsomia and other craniofacial deformities.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1991; 28: 354–359.
27.
PertschukM.J., WhitakerL.A.Psychosocial adjustment and craniofacial malformations in childhood.Plast Reconstr Surg1985; 75: 177–184.
28.
PillemerF.G., CookK.V.The psychosocial adjustment of pediatric craniofacial patients after surgery.Cleft Palate J1989; 26: 201–207.
29.
PopeA.W., WardJ.Self-perceived facial appearance and psychosocial adjustment in préadolescents with craniofacial anomalies.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1997; 34: 396–401.
30.
PruzanskyS.Not all dwarfed mandibles are alike.Birth Defects1969; 1: 120–129.
31.
ReisH.T., HodginsH.S.Reactions to craniofacial disfigurement: lessons from the physical attractiveness and stigma literatures, In: EderR., ed. Craniofacial Anomalies: Psychological Perspectives.New York: Springer-Verlag;1995: 177–197.
32.
RichmanL.C.Facial and speech relationships to behavior of children with clefts across three age levels.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1997; 34: 390–395.
33.
SpeltzM.L., EndrigaM.C., FisherP.A., MasonC.A.Early predictors of attachment in infants with cleft lip and/or palate.Child Dev1997; 68: 12–25.
34.
SpeltzM.L., GreenbergM.T., EndrigaM., GalbreathH.A developmental approach to the psychology of craniofacial anomalies.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1994; 31: 61–67.
35.
SpeltzM.L., MortonK., GoodellE.W., ClarrenS.K.Psychological functioning of children with craniofacial anomalies and their mothers: a follow-up from late infancy to school entry.Cleft Palate Craniofac J1993; 30: 482–489.
36.
SpeltzM.L., RichmanL.C.Editorial: progress and limitations in the psychological study of craniofacial anomalies.J Pediatr Psychol1997; 22: 433–438.
37.
TobiasenJ.M., HiebertJ.M.Clefting and psychosocial adjustment: influence of facial aesthetics.Clin Piasl Surg Adv Manage Cleft Lip Palate1993; 20: 623–631.
38.
VargervikK.Hemifacial microsomia: strategies to manage asymmetries. In: BerkowitzS., ed. Cleft Lip and Palate with an Introduction to Other Craniofacial Anomalies—Perspectives in Management. Vol. 11. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group:1996: 273–285.
