Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Processing speed and working memory underlie academic attainment in very preterm children
  1. Hanna Mulder1,
  2. Nicola J Pitchford2,
  3. Neil Marlow1
  1. 1School of Clinical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Hanna Mulder, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Pedagogical Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands; h.mulder2{at}


Aim To study the impact of specific neuropsychological measures on academic attainment in very preterm (VPT) children.

Methods VPT children (gestational age <31 weeks, N=48) and matched term controls (N=17) aged 9–10 years were assessed with measures of processing speed, executive function and IQ. Teachers reported on academic achievement in a questionnaire.

Results Group differences in academic attainment were significant for maths (OR 6.5; 95% CI 1.7 to 25.8), English/literacy (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 13.5), overall academic attainment (OR 11.9; 95% CI 1.4 to 96.9) and special educational needs provision (OR 7.2; 95% CI 1.5 to 35.0). All significant group differences in attainment could be accounted for by processing speed. Birth group, processing speed and working memory were significant predictors of overall attainment (R2=0.57; p<0.001).

Conclusions Processing speed and working memory are important factors underlying academic attainment in VPT children. Specific tests of processing speed and working memory, which together take approximately only 10 min to administer, could potentially be used as efficient screening instruments to assess which children are at risk of educational problems and should be referred for a full neuropsychological assessment.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding HM is supported by the Medical Research Council.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Research Ethics Committee 1.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.