Hostname: page-component-758b78586c-kdfvs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-29T04:53:54.250Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Temperament and Neonatal Risk in Full-Term and Preterm Combined Vaginal/Cesarean Section Twin Pairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

M.L. Riese*
Louisville Twin Study, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Kentucky, USA
Louisville Twin Study, Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA


Core share and HTML view are not possible as this article does not have html content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ten pairs of full-term and 8 pairs of preterm twins from combined vaginal and Cesarean section deliveries were evaluated on measures of neonatal temperament, developmental status, and integrity to determine if the Cesarean-delivered infant was compromised relative to its vaginally-delivered twin. There were no significant differences, within groups, between the vaginal and Cesarean section infants on measures of risk and developmental status. Analyses of variance of paired comparisons performed on the temperament measures indicated that, for the full-term group, there were no significant differences in ratings between vaginally and Cesarean-delivered infants. In contrast, preterm infants delivered by Cesarean section were more active during sleep than their vaginally-delivered cotwins. This finding, together with previous findings demonstrating a relation between this measure and temperament at 9, 18, and 24 months of age, suggested that the preterm Cesarean-delivered infant may be at risk in this area when compared with its twin. In the main, however, the results demonstrated that infants born by Cesarean section following vaginal delivery of their twins were not more compromised than their twin siblings.

Research Article
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1988



1. Apgar, V (1953): A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analgesia 32:260267.Google Scholar
2. Birns, B, Barten, S, Bridger, WH (1969): Individuai differences in temperamental characteristics of infants. Trans NY Acad Sci 31:10711083.Google Scholar
3. Epstein, S (1980): The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. Am Psychol 35:790806.Google Scholar
4. Evrard, JR, Gold, EM (1981): Cesarean section for delivery of the second twin. Obstet Gynecol 57:581583.Google Scholar
5. Gerber, JH, Choithani, H, O'Leary, JA (1969): Cesarean section for the second twin. Obstet Gynecol 33:770771.Google Scholar
6. Littman, B, Parmelee, AH Jr (1978): Medical correlates of infant development. Pediatrics 61:470474.Google Scholar
7. Matheny, AP Jr, Riese, ML, Wilson, RS (1985): Rudiments of infant temperament: Newborn to nine months. Dev Psychol 21:486494.Google Scholar
8. Miyake, K, Chen, S, Campos, JJ (1985): Infant temperament, mother's mode of interaction, and attachment in Japan: An interim report. In Bretherton, I, Waters, E (eds): “Growing points of attachment theory and research.” Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 50:276297 (1-2 serial no 209).Google Scholar
9. Rattan, PK, Knuppel, RA, O'Brien, WF, Scerbo, JC (1986): Cesarean delivery of the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 154:936939.Google Scholar
10. Riese, ML (1982): Procedures and norms for assessing behavioral patterns in full-term and stable pre-term neonates. JSAS Catalog Selected Doc Psychol 12:6 (ms no 2415).Google Scholar
11. Riese, ML (1983): Assessment of behavioral patterns in neonates. Infant Behav Dev 6:241246.Google Scholar
12. Riese, ML (1987): Temperament stability between the neonatal period and 24 months. Dev Psychol 23:216222.Google Scholar
13. Riese, ML (1987): Longitudinal assessment of temperament from birth to two years: A comparison of full-term and preterm infants. Infant Behav Dev 10:347363.Google Scholar