Over-reaching with causality language in neurodevelopmental infant research: A methodological literature review

A methodological review of 78 empirical articles focusing on the neurodevelopmental outcomes of at-risk infants was conducted.

To examine ways language and terminology are used to describe methods, present results, and/or state conclusions in studies published during 1994-2005, a decade reflecting major advances in neurodevelopmental research and in medical intervention. More specifically, to investigate to what extent the design of the study and the language in the results section aligned in regard to causality.

A process of search and selection of studies published in pediatric journals was conducted through Google Scholar. Criteria of inclusion and exclusion, following PRISMA, were used. Selected studies reported neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants and young children considered at-risk, and were further categorized accordingly to their study designs. Language use in regard to whether the presentation and interpretation of results may convey causal relationships between birth risk factors and neurodevelopmental outcomes was examined following two analytical steps.

Forty out of 78 studies, (51.28 %) used causality-implying language (e.g., effect, predict, influence) notwithstanding that the study design was non-causal.

Anticipating the next generation of neurodevelopmental-outcomes research, a framework that aims to raise awareness of the importance of language use and the impact of causality-related terms often used in longitudinal studies is proposed. The objective is to avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings around causal or non-causal connections between birth risk factors and developmental outcomes across diverse audiences, including early intervention practitioners working directly with infants and their families.