Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of International Adoptees

Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of International Adoptees ContextInternational adoption involves more than 40 000 children a year moving among more than 100 countries. Before adoption, international adoptees often experience insufficient medical care, malnutrition, maternal separation, and neglect and abuse in orphanages.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of international adoption on behavioral problems and mental health referrals.Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE, PsychLit, and ERIC from 1950 to January 2005 using the terms adopt*combined with (behavior) problem, disorder, (mal)adjustment, (behavioral) development, clinicalor psychiatric (referral), or mental health; conducted a manual search of the references of articles, books, book chapters, and reports; and consulted experts for relevant studies. The search was not limited to English-language publications.Study SelectionStudies that provided sufficient data to compute differences between adoptees (in all age ranges) and nonadopted controls were selected, resulting in 34 articles on mental health referrals and 64 articles on behavior problems.Data ExtractionData on international adoption, preadoption adversity, and other moderators were extracted from each study and inserted in the program Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA). Effect sizes (d) for the overall differences between adoptees and controls regarding internalizing, externalizing, total behavior problems, and use of mental health services were computed. Homogeneity across studies was tested with the Qstatistic.Data SynthesisAmong 25 281 cases and 80 260 controls, adoptees (both within and between countries) presented more behavior problems, but effect sizes were small (d, 0.16-0.24). Adoptees (5092 cases) were overrepresented in mental health services and this effect size was large (d, 0.72). Among 15 790 cases and 30  450 controls, international adoptees showed more behavior problems than nonadopted controls, but effect sizes were small (d, 0.07-0.11). International adoptees showed fewer total, externalizing and internalizing behavior problems than domestic adoptees. Also, international adoptees were less often referred to mental health services (d, 0.37) than domestic adoptees (d, 0.81). International adoptees with preadoption adversity showed more total problems and externalizing problems than international adoptees without evidence of extreme deprivation.ConclusionsMost international adoptees are well-adjusted although they are referred to mental health services more often than nonadopted controls. However, international adoptees present fewer behavior problems and are less often referred to mental health services than domestic adoptees.International adoption is an increasing phenomenon involving more than 40 000 children a year moving between more than 100 countries.By setting uniform norms and standards, the 1993 Hague Conventionendorsed and facilitated international adoption. International adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be found in the country of origin. In 2004, most international adoptions in the United States (22 884) were from China, Russia, Guatemala, South Korea, and Kazakhstan,whereas most international adoptions in Europe (15 847 in 2003) were from China, Russia, Colombia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria.Since the 1970s, domestic adoptions in North America and Europe drastically decreased, whereas at the same time the number of international adoptions increased.International adoptees often experience inadequate prenatal and perinatal medical care, maternal separation, psychological deprivation, insufficient health services, neglect, abuse, and malnutrition in orphanages or poor families before adoptive placement.Animal models have shown that early maternal separation and deprivation can seriously harm infant functioning and later development.Psychological deprivation in orphanages can result in maladjustment in children.In addition, after adoptive placement, adoptees have to cope with integrating the loss of their culture and birth family into their lives.In contrast to domestic adoptees who are adopted within the same country, international adoptees may face problems regarding their divergent identity,as most international adoptees are raised by parents who do not share their racial and cultural background.Adoption usually offers improved medical, physical, educational, and psychological opportunities for institutionalized children,and research has documented children’s substantial recovery from deprivation after adoption,which may partly be due to the possibility that some adopted children were selected for adoption because they seemed brighter or had better social skills. Nevertheless, several studies found that adopted children were overrepresented in mental health populations and showed more externalizing disorders.Some studies found more mental health problems in international adoptees compared with nonadopted controls, in particular in male adoptees,in adolescence,and in children placed beyond infancy.However, the majority of adoptees were functioning well.In a large national cohort study in Sweden involving more than 11 000 international adoptees, a significantly higher risk of suicide, psychiatric illness, and social maladjustment was found compared with nonadopted controls although most adoptees were doing well.The authors stated that further studies with less severe outcomes are needed as the main differences between adoptees and nonadopted controls were found in only a small number of international adoptees.We report the first meta-analyses on behavior problems and mental health referrals of international adoptees comparing them to nonadopted controls and domestic adoptees. We hypothesized that international adoptees present more behavior problems and are referred to mental health services more often than nonadopted controlsor domestic adoptees.We hypothesized that those with preadoption adversity,older ages at international adoptive placement (>12 months),and maleswould have an increased risk for behavior problems and mental health referrals. International adoptees were also expected to show more behavior problems in adolescence compared with the years before adolescence.We studied domestic adoptions in Western countries only because the increasing domestic adoptions in developing countries, eg, India,have not been systematically studied yet.METHODSSelection of StudiesThe guidelines published by Stroup et alfor the meta-analysis of observational studies were followed. The aims of our meta-analysis were (1) to compare all adoptees with nonadopted controls; (2) to compare international adoptees with nonadopted controls; (3) to compare international adoptees with domestic adoptees; and (4) to examine moderators for the international adoption outcomes. Empirical studies documenting adoptees’ behavior problems and use of mental health services were collected systematically, using 3 search strategies.First, MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine), PsychLit (Psychological Literature), and ERIC (Education Resource Information Center) were searched for case-control studies published between 1950 and January 2005 with the key words adopt*, combined with (behavior) problem(s), disorder(s), (mal)adjustment, (behavioral) development, clinicalor psychiatric (referral), or mental health. Second, the references of the collected journal articles, books, book chapters, and reports were searched for relevant studies. Third, experts in the field were asked for relevant studies. The search was not limited to English-language publications. Our selection criteria were broad in order to include as many studies as possible. Adoptees in all age groups were included, from early childhood through adulthood. In case of a longitudinal study, the first assessment with adequate data was used to ensure that every adoptee was counted only once in the pertinent meta-analyses. Similarly, a study sample described in several articles or chapters was used only once. We included studies using the Child Behavior CheckListor related measures to measure problem behavior. Studies involving clinically referred adoptees were included in so far as their rate of mental health referrals could be compared with the rate of adoptees in the general population. We excluded studies that exclusively sampled adopted children exposed to alcohol or drugs in utero,physically or mentally handicapped children, and other special needs children, such as hard-to-place children.Data ExtractionData were entered into a customized meta-analytic database. We used a detailed coding system to extract from every study data on sample characteristics, design, publication outlet, and information on behavioral problems or mental health referrals. Study characteristics and study results were coded independently. The main coder of the study characteristics was blinded to the meta-analytic study results and had no previous familiarity with the adoption field.The following sample characteristics were extracted: sex, age at adoptive placement, age at assessment, duration of time with the adoptive family, evidence that the participants in the study were international adoptees, and evidence of preadoption adversity. If available, we included findings for males and females (in case this was not reported, the study was placed in the category of mixed) or different age groups separately, considering these groups as subsamples of the same study. We coded whether the adoptees were placed for adoption between 0 and 12 months, 12 and 24 months, or older than 24 months (or NA, not available, if data were not reported or extractable). We also coded the participants’ age at the time of the assessment: between 0 and 4 years, 4 and 12 years, 12 and 18 years, or older than 18 years (or NA). We coded whether the adoptees had been with the adoptive family for 0 to 4 years, more than 4 to 8 years, more than 8 to 12 years, or more than 12 years. We also extracted whether the adoptees were placed internationally or not. Studies were coded as an international adoption study if the report indicated that all participants were adopted internationally. Preadoption adversity was coded if at least 50% of a sample experienced extreme deprivation, such as serious neglect, malnutrition, and/or abuse. As most adoptees experienced at least some deprivation before adoptive placement and because preadoption histories were not known with certainty in most cases, our index of adversity must be considered as a proxy for the most extreme preadoption circumstances.The following design characteristics were extracted: whether a nonadopted norm group (eg, Child Behavior Checklist norms) or other control group (a general population sample, classmates, or siblings) was used in the study, and the sample sizes of the adoption and control group. Studies that did not include a nonadopted control group were not included in the meta-analysis. Also, country of study was extracted, distinguishing between studies conducted in North America vs other countries. Finally, year of publication was extracted, analyzing studies published before 1959, during 1960-1969, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990 or later. Quality of study, as outlined for experimental research,was not coded because some crucial criteria, eg, randomization, are not applicable to nonexperimental research. However, sample size was accounted for in the study outcomes and publication outlet was coded as proxy of study quality.Publication outlet was assessed by distinguishing between studies published in refereed scientific journals and in other scientific reports, books, and book chapters. Peer-reviewed journals may set higher standards than nonrefereed outlets. Alternatively, scientific journals may be more hesitant in accepting studies with small sample sizes, nonsignificant outcomes (resulting in a publication bias, see below), or both than books or chapters.We extracted information on behavior problems, mental health referrals, or both. For behavior problems, we distinguished between total problems, externalizing problems (eg, aggression, delinquency, hyperactivity), and internalizing problems (eg, withdrawn, anxious or depressed).In several studies, scores for externalizing problems and internalizing problems were reported but scores for total behavior problems were lacking. In those cases, a weighted average score was constructed for total problems based on the scores for externalizing and internalizing problems because externalizing and internalizing problems are considered as adequately representing total problems.We also coded for whether the study involved a referred adoption group (eg, referred to a psychiatric clinic), and if so, whether the rate of overrepresentation of mental health referrals could be computed (ie, percentage of adoptees in the clinic population vs percentage of adoptees in the general population). Satisfactory intercoder reliabilities were established (89%; range, 75%-100%; k= 20).Statistical MethodsThe various statistics in the adoption studies were recomputed with Mullen’s advanced basic meta-analysis programand transformed into Cohen d.For each study we thus calculated an effect size (Cohen d): the standardized difference between the means of the adoptive and the nonadoptive group. According to Cohen’scriteria, ds of <0.20 are considered small effects; ds of about 0.50, moderate effects; and ds of about 0.80, large effects. The resulting set of effect sizes were inserted in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA, version 1.025) programthat computed fixed as well as random-effect model parameters and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the point estimate of an effect size. The Qstatistics (provided by CMA) were used to test the homogeneity of the specific set of effect sizes and the significance of moderators.The set of international adoption studies was homogeneous; therefore, we decided to use the combined effect sizes in the context of the fixed-effect models in the meta-analyses of international adoptees. In the total set of studies (international and domestic adoption), random-effect models were used as several subsets were heterogeneous.In the random-effect models, we computed 85% CIs around the point estimate of each set of effect sizes. When testing moderators, inspection of the overlap between these CIs provided a test of the differences between the combined effects of subsets of study effect sizes grouped by moderators. This approach of comparing 85% CIs served as the significance test in the context of a random-effect model for which the Qstatistics are not an adequate index of significance of differences.Nonoverlapping 85% CIs were considered to indicate a significantly different effect size in subsets of study outcomes.Winsorizing was used to redress outlying sample sizes.Also, combined effect sizes and confidence boundaries were recomputed removing 1 study at a time. This method to test the stability of the outcomes is similar to a jackknife procedure that takes an entire sample except for 1 value, and then calculates the test statistic of interest. It repeats the process, each time leaving out a different value, and each time recalculating the test statistic.We used 1 of the methods developed to estimate potential publication bias, namely, the trim-and-fillmethod (available in CMA). Using this method, a funnel plot is constructed of each study’s effect size against its precision (1/SE). These plots should be shaped like a funnel if no publication bias is present. However, since smaller or nonsignificant studies are less likely to be published, studies in the bottom left-hand corner of the plot are often omitted.For the meta-analyses the right-most studies considered to be symmetrically unmatched were trimmed. The trimmed studies were then replaced and their missing counterparts imputed or filled as mirror images of the trimmed outcomes. This then allowed for the computation of an adjusted effect size and CI.Also, a fail-safe number was computed, ie, the number of studies (k) that would be needed to change a significant combined effect size into a nonsignificant outcome.RESULTSWe were able to find 101 subsamples (study outcomes or subsamples coded separately, eg, males and females; hereafter, studies) on total behavior problems, including 25 281 cases and 80 260 controls, 64 studies on externalizing problems and 64 studies on internalizing problems (Table 1and Table 2). We also found 36 studies on mental health referrals (reported in 34 articles; Table 3), including 5092 cases and 75 858 controls. The studies were published in English, Spanish, German, Dutch, and Swedish. The studies were conducted in North America (54%): Canada and the United States; Europe (33%): Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom; Australia and New Zealand (11%); and other countries (2%). The majority of participants in the studies coded as noninternational, domestic adoption studies were placed within the country. A few domestic adoption studies included a minority of international adoptees (eg, 23%or 28%).Table 1.Case-Control Studies With Behavioral DataSourceNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlsAge at Adoption, moAge at Assessment, yStudy PopulationCountry of StudyType of Diagnostic ToolType of Problem BehaviorExternalizingInternalizingTotalAndresen,1992135-13512-2412-18INTNorwayRutter (T)NANAYesBagley,199120-20>2412-18INTCanadaInterview (P/C)YesYesYes*79-43>2412-18 . . . CanadaInterview (P/C)YesYesYes*Barth and Berry,198885-1300>244-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesYesYes*Benson et al,1994881-norm†<1212-18 . . . United StatesYSRYesYesYesBerg-Kelly andEriksson,1997125-9204<1212-18INTSwedenQ90YesYesYes*Bogaerts and van Aelst,199870-75812-2412-18INTBelgiumCBCLYesYesYes*Bohman,1970168-norm†<124-12 . . . SwedenInterview (T)YesYesYes*Borders et al,199872-72NA4-12 . . . United StatesSurveyNANAYesBorders et al,2000100-70NA>18 . . . United StatesCES-DNAYesNABotvar,1994384-688912-24>18INTNorwayHSCLNANAYesBrand andBrinich,1999174-10464<12NA . . . United StatesBPINANAYesBrodzinsky et al,1984130-130<124-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesYesYes*Brodzinsky et al,199361-62<124-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesYesYes*Carey et al,197459-200<120-4 . . . United StatesTQNANAYesCastle et al,200050-norm†<124-12 . . . United KingdomInterview (P)YesNANACederblad et al,1999211-norm†<1212-18INTSwedenCBCLYesYesYesCermak andDaunhauer,199773-7212-244-12INTUnited StatesDSPQNANAYesCohen et al,199323-2012-244-12 . . . CanadaCBCLYesYesYesCook et al,1997131-12512-244-12 . . . EuropeRutter (P)NANAYesDalen,2001193-173<1212-18INTNorwayRutter (T)YesYesYes*Deater-Deckard and Plomin,199978-94<124-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesNANADe Jong,2001116-norm†>244-12INTNew ZealandCBCLNANAYesDumaret,198535-35<124-12 . . . FranceRutter (T)YesNANAFan et al,2002514-17241NA12-18 . . . United StatesInterview (P/C)YesYesYes*Feigelman,1997101-6258NA12-18 . . . United StatesInterviewNAYesNAFergusson et al,199532-842<1212-18 . . . New ZealandDISCYesYesYes*Fisch et al,197694-188<124-12 . . . United StatesBPNANAYesFisher et al,199721-23<120-4INTCanadaCBCLYesYesYesFisher et al,199734-2312-240-4INTCanadaCBCLYesYesYesForsten-Lindman,199334-5012-244-12INTFinlandBDGHIYesNANAGardner et al,196129-29<1212-18 . . . United StatesCFMASNAYesNAGeerars et al,199568-756<1212-18INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesGoldney et al,199634-23312-2412-18INTAustraliaCBCLYesYesYesGolombok et al,200149-38<124-12 . . . United KingdomSDQNANAYesAbbreviations: BASC, Behavior Assessment System for Children; BDC, Behavior Description Chart; BDGHI, Buss-Durkee Guilt-Hostility Inventory; BP, Behavior Profile; BPI, Behavior Problem Index; BSQ, Behavior Style Questionnaire; C, child report; CBCL, Child Behavior CheckList; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; CFMAS, Children’s Form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale; CTP, California Test of Personality; DIS, Diagnostic Interview Schedule; DISC, Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children; DSM-III, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition; DSPQ, Developmental and Sensory Processing Questionnaire; HSCL, Hopkins Symptom CheckList; IBQ, Infant Behavior Questionnaire; ICD-9; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; INT, sample with 100% international adoptees; NA, data were not reported or not extractable; OARS, Older Adults Resources and Services; Q90, questionnaire on adolescent health habits and risk behavior; QBPC, Quay’s Behavior Problems Checklist; P, parent report; Rutter (P), Rutter Parent scale; Rutter (T), Rutter Teacher Scale; SCL-90, Symptoms CheckList; SCR-90-R, Symptoms Distress Checklist-90-Revised; SDI, Survey Diagnostic Instrument (based on DSM-III); SDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; T, teacher report; TABS, Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale; TQ, temperament questionnaire; YSR, Youth Self-Report. Abbreviations apply to Table 1and Table 2. Ellipses indicate that the sample included predominantly domestic adoptees.*Based on the scores for externalizing and internalizing problems, a weighted average score was constructed for total problems.†Norm indicates the percentage of out-of-home placements in a normative population.Table 2.Case-Control Studies With Behavioral Data*SourceNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlsAge at Adoption, moAge at Assessment, yStudy PopulationCountry of StudyType of Diagnostic ToolType of Problem BehaviorExternalizingInternalizingTotalHjern et al,200211320-2343<1212-18INTSwedenICD-9YesYesYes†Hodges et al,198923-23>2412-18. . .United KingdomRutter (P/T)YesYesYesHoksbergen et al,200280-1172>244-12INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesHoopes et al,1970100-100NA12-18. . .United StatesCTP (T)NANAYesHoopes et al,199724-norm‡12-2412-18. . .United StatesCBCLNANAYesHoward et al,200489-8712-244-12INTUnited StatesBPINANAYesHoward et al,2004481-88<1212-18. . .United StatesBPINANAYesJudge,2003108-621>240-4INTUnited StatesTABSNANAYesKim et al,199918-9<124-12INTUnited StatesCBCLYesYesYesLansford et al,200111-200<1212-18. . .United StatesCBCLYesYesYesLevy-Shiff,200191-91<12>18. . .IsraelSCR-90-RNANAYesLindholm andTouliatos,198041-2991NA4-12. . .United StatesQBPC (T)YesYesYes†Lipman et al,1992104-3185NA4-12. . .CanadaSDINANAYesLogan et al,199862-60112-244-12. . .United KingdomCBCLNANAYesLogan et al,199835-60012-244-12. . .United KingdomCBCLNANAYesMarcovitch et al,199756-norm‡<124-12INTCanadaCBCLNANAYesMaughan et al,1998121-251<124-12. . .United KingdomSurveyNANAYesPalacios andSanchez,1996210-314>244-12. . .SpainRutter (T)YesYesYesPinderhughes,199833-16>244-12. . .United StatesCBCLYesYesYes†Pinderhughes,199833-1712-244-12. . .United StatesCBCLYesYesYes†Priel et al,200050-8012-244-12. . .IsraelCBCLYesYesYes†Rojewski et al,200045-norm‡12-240-4INTUnited StatesBASC (P)YesYesYes†Rosenwald,1994279-2729<124-12INTAustraliaCBCLNANAYesSharma et al,19964464-544312-2412-18. . .United StatesSurveyYesYesYes†Sharma et al,1998881-78<1212-18. . .United StatesYSRYesYesYesSharma et al,199892-norm‡<1212-18INTUnited StatesYSRYesYesYesSinger et al,198520-10<120-4. . .United StatesIBQNANAYesSmyer et al,199860-60<12>18. . .SwedenOARSNANAYesStams et al,2000159-norm‡<124-12INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesStorsbergen,200449-norm‡<12>18INTThe NetherlandsSCL-90NAYesNASullivan et al,199524-1212<12>18. . .New ZealandDIS (DSM-III)YesNAYesTsitsikas et al,198872-72<124-12. . .GreeceBSQNANAYesVerhulst et al,19902148-931>2412-18INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesWarren,1992145-3553NA12-18. . .United StatesInterviewNANAYesWitmer et al,1963484-484<124-12. . .United StatesBDC (T)YesYesYes†For abbreviations see footnotes to Table 1.*Ellipses indicate that the sample included predominantly domestic adoptees.†Based on the scores for externalizing and internalizing problems a weighted average score was constructed for total problems.‡Norm indicates the percentage of out-of-home placements in a normative population.Table 3.Studies With Mental Health Referral Data for AdopteesSourceNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlsAge at Adoption, moAge at Assessment, yStudy PopulationCountry of StudyType of Mental Health ReferralBorgatta and Fanshel,1965123-2158NANA. . .United StatesOutpatient psychiatric clinicBrinich and Brinich,198241-826<124-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric instituteCederblad,199184-3916>244-12INTSwedenChild psychiatric clinicDery-Alfredsson and Katz,1986171-9660NA4-12INTSwedenChild psychiatric clinicDeutsch,1982*24-206NA4-12. . .United States and CanadaChild development or pediatric clinicDeutsch,1982*15-185NA4-12. . .United States and CanadaChild development or pediatric clinicDickson et al,199044-33112-2412-18. . .United StatesPsychiatric hospital inpatient unitEiduson and Livermore,19538-72NA4-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric clinicGoldberg and Wolkind,1992200-5600NANA. . .United KingdomPsychiatric clinicGoodman et al,196314-579>244-12. . .United StatesChild psychiatric clinicGoodman and Magno,1975100-2400NANA. . .United StatesChild psychiatric clinicHoksbergen and Bakker-van Zeil,1983199-16754NA4-12INTThe NetherlandsChild guidance or psychiatric treatmentHoksbergen et al,1988349-15522NANAINTThe NetherlandsOut-of-home placements or residential settingsHolden,199118-452<1212-18. . .United KingdomPsychiatric hospitalHolman,195311-189NANA. . .United StatesChild guidance clinic or residential placementHoward et al,200489-8712-244-12INTUnited StatesPlacement in a mental health facilityHoward et al,2004481-88<1212-18. . .United StatesPlacement in a mental health facilityHumphrey and Ounsted,196380-2679<124-12. . .United KingdomPsychiatric hosptitalJameson,196742-34812-24NA. . .United StatesPsychiatric serviceJerome,1986128-1699NA4-12. . .CanadaTreatment in mental health centerJungmann,198028-218212-244-12. . .GermanyPsychiatric clinicKenny et al,196739-961<124-12. . .United StatesPediatric clinicKetchum,196420-176<124-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric hospitalKotsopoulos et al,19889-105<1212-18. . .CanadaPsychiatric servicePiersma,1987134-110212-2412-18. . .United StatesInpatient psychiatric treatmentPringle,1961210-2383NANA. . .United KingdomOut-of-home placement in residential settingReece and Levin,196811-233<124-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric serviceRogeness et al,198866-69712-2412-18. . .United StatesPsychiatric hospitalSchechter,196016-104NANA. . .United StatesPrivate psychiatric practiceSenior and Himadi,198534-126>2412-18. . .United StatesAdolescent psychiatric inpatient unitSimon and Senturia,196635-1330<1212-18. . .United StatesPsychiatric departmentSweeny et al,196321-271<124-12. . .United StatesChild guidance clinicToussieng,196239-318<124-12. . .United StatesOutpatient psychiatric serviceTreffers et al,199845-1907NA4-12INTThe NetherlandsChild psychiatric clinicVerhulst and Versluis-den- Bieman,19892136-norm†NA12-18INTThe NetherlandsOut-of-home placement in residential settingZucker and Bradley,199828-21012-244-12. . .CanadaPsychiatric referralAbreviations: INT, sample with 100% international adoptees; NA, data were not reported or not extractable; ellipses, sample included predominantly domestic adoptees.*Figures are from 2 clinics.†Norm indicates the percentage of out-of-home placements in a normative population.For total behavior problems, the age at assessment was from 0 to 4 years in 7% of the studies; older than 4 to 12 years in 44.5%; older than 12 to 18 years in 44.5%; and more than 18 years in 4%. Age at adoptive placement was from 0 to 12 months in 45% of the studies; more than 12 to 24 months in 21%; more than 24 months in 24%; and not reported in 10%. Separate data were reported for male and female adoptees in 24% of the studies and in 52% of the studies data for mixed groups were reported. The nonadopted control groups consisted of samples from the general population (50% of the studies), classmates (12%), siblings of the adoptees (6%), and norm groups, eg, Child Behavior Checklist norms (32%).For mental health referrals, age at assessment was from 4 to 12 years in 53% of the studies; older than 12 to 18 years in 25%; and not reported in 22%. Age at adoptive placement was from 0 to 12 months in 31% of the studies; more than 12 to 24 months in 19%; more than 24 months in 8%; and not reported in 42%. Distinct data for female and male adoptees were not reported. The nonadopted control groups consisted of samples from the general population (8%) and normative data (92%).Adoptees vs Nonadopted ControlsAnalyzing all adoption studies, we computed effect sizes (d)for the overall differences between adoptees (both within and between countries) and nonadopted controls (Table 4). Compared with nonadopted controls, adoptees showed more total behavior problems (d, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.13-0.24), more externalizing behavior problems (d, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.31), and more internalizing behavior problems (d, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.26), all in heterogeneous sets of studies, but all effect sizes were small.Also, adoptees were overrepresented in mental health referrals (d, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) in a heterogeneous set of studies, and this effect size was large.No publication bias was found in these 4 meta-analyses (Lo, 0 in all cases). The fail-safe number was k= 5251 for total problems, k= 3128 for externalizing problems, k= 2758 for internalizing problems, and k= 7282 for mental health referrals. Combined effect sizes and CIs computed with the jackknife procedure remained the same for all 4 meta-analyses.Table 4.Meta-analytic Results of Studies Comparing Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of Adoptees and Nonadopted ControlsNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlskEffect Size, d(CI)*QTotal behavior problemsTotal set25281-802601010.18 (0.13-0.24)†‡543.91§Adoption typeInternational15790-30450470.11 (0.09-0.13)&par;¶61.85Domestic9491-49810540.20 (0.14-0.27)†¶331.05§Externalizing problemsTotal set22456-47723640.24 (0.16-0.31)†‡367.65§Adoption typeInternational14581-17363290.10 (0.08-0.13)&par;¶28.55Domestic7875-30360350.34 (0.26-0.42)†¶211.75§Internalizing problemsTotal set22483-52579640.16 (0.07-0.26)†‡698.08§Adoption typeInternational14596-18322300.07 (0.05-0.10)&par;¶22.55Domestic7887-34257340.23 (0.13-0.32)†¶352.62§Mental health referralsTotal set5092-75858360.72 (0.57-0.86)†‡405.38§Adoption typeInternational3073-4784870.37 (0.22-0.52)†¶42.53§Domestic2019-28010290.81 (0.67-0.94)†¶321.55§*All effect sizes were statistically significant (P<.001). The effect sizes and confidence intervals (CIs) are approximations.†Random effect.‡95% CI.§P<001.&par;Fixed effect.¶85% CI.International Adoptees vs Nonadopted ControlsThere were 47 studies involving international adoptees reporting on total behavior problems, 29 studies on externalizing problems, 30 studies on internalizing problems (Table 5), and 7 studies reporting on mental health referrals (Table 4). The adopted children came from Romania or Russia,Korea (and other countries),India (and other countries),Colombia (and other countries),Thailand,Indonesia,China,Sri Lanka (and other countries),Greece,and several countries in Asia and South America.Table 5.Meta-analytic Results of Studies Comparing Behavior Problems of International Adoptees and Nonadopted ControlsNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlskEffect Size, d(CI)*QTotal Behavior ProblemsTotal set15790-30450470.11 (0.09 to 0.13)†‡61.85Preadoption adversityNo13175-24865290.09 (0.05 to 0.12)†‡35.97Yes2615-5585180.18 (0.12 to 0.24)†‡21.04Sex of cohortMale5806-11090170.13 (0.08 to 0.18)†‡20.42Female8810-10711170.09 (0.05 to 0.14)†‡11.94Mixed1174-8649130.19 (0.05 to 0.32)§¶29.80‡Age at adoption, mo0-1212455-16937200.09 (0.06 to 0.13)†‡26.79>12-24863-8203110.21 (0.04 to 0.37)&par;¶25.23‡>242472-5310160.16 (0.10 to 0.23)†‡8.17Age at assessment, y0-4208-66940.20 (0.02 to 0.38)‡¶1.07>4-121379-6510160.23 (0.16 to 0.30)†‡23.43>12-1813819-16382260.09 (0.05 to 0.12)†‡20.11>18384-688910.00 (−0.10 to 0.10)Time in family, y0-4337-94160.29 (0.03 to 0.54)†¶12.07&par;>4-8565-5831110.25 (0.17 to 0.34)†‡6.35>8-122452-2765130.18 (0.11 to 0.25)†‡9.88>1212436-20913170.05 (0.02 to 0.09)‡§8.96Control groupTotal No. in norm group14593-20146210.13 (0.07 to 0.20)†&par;42.45‡General population2928-17487140.16 (0.05 to 0.26)§&par;33.61‡Classmates327-30740.20 (0.05 to 0.36)‡¶3.01Unrelated siblings11338-235230.06 (0.01 to 0.10)‡¶0.31Norm group1197-10304260.18 (0.12 to 0.25)†‡14.49Country of studyNorth America626-1132120.23 (0.12 to 0.35)†‡16.08Other countries15164-29318350.10 (0.07 to 0.13)†‡42.70Publication outletJournal articles14852-16894290.16 (0.10 to 0.22)‡&par;52.04‡Reports, books938-13556180.11 (0.04 to 0.18)‡§11.42Externalizing ProblemsTotal Set14581-17363290.10 (0.07 to 0.13)†‡28.55Sample characteristicsPreadoption adversityNo12319-15237220.08 (0.04 to 0.12)†‡19.34Yes2262-212670.17 (0.10 to 0.24)†‡4.63SexMale5628-8489100.12 (0.07 to 0.17)†‡15.02Female8455-8045100.08 (0.03 to 0.13)‡§3.87Mixed498-82990.11 (−0.01 to 0.23)‡8.44Age at adoption, mo0-1212116-14170150.08 (0.04 to 0.12)†‡17.08>12-24217-107070.08 (−0.09 to 0.26)‡2.97>242248-212370.17 (0.09 to 0.24)†‡4.33Age at assessment, y0-4100-4830.24 (−0.14 to 0.63)‡0.21>4-12877-267980.17 (0.07 to 0.26)†‡8.41>12-1813604-14636180.09 (0.05 to 0.13)†‡17.02>18NANANANATime in family, y0-4100-4830.24 (−0.14 to 0.63)‡0.21>4-8247-231050.26 (0.13 to 0.39)†‡4.01>8-122182-98150.15 (0.08 to 0.23)†‡4.52>1212052-14024160.07 (0.02 to 0.11)†‡9.45DesignControl groupTotal No. in norm group13947-13013170.09 (0.05 to 0.13)†‡18.32General population2382-10438110.14 (0.07 to 0.21)†‡7.66Classmates227-22330.20 (0.01 to 0.39)‡¶4.26Unrelated siblings11338-235230.06 (0.02 to 0.11)‡§1.26Norm group634-4350120.17 (0.07 to 0.26)*†7.95Country of studyNorth America230-8170.13 (−0.16 to 0.42)‡2.10Other countries14351-17282220.10 (0.07 to 0.13)†‡26.42Publication outletJournal articles14392-15779230.10 (0.06 to 0.13)†‡27.72Reports, books189-1.58460.12 (−0.04 to 0.27)‡0.79Internalizing ProblemsTotal Set14596-18322300.07 (0.04 to 0.11)†‡22.55Sample characteristicsPreadoption adversityNo12334-16196230.07 (0.03 to 0.11)†‡18.57Yes2262-212670.09 (0.02 to 0.16)‡¶3.68SexMale5655-8921110.08 (0.03 to 0.13)†‡11.38Female8477-8622110.05 (0.00 to 0.10)‡¶2.35Mixed464-77980.13 (0.00 to 0.26)‡¶7.34Age at adoption, mo0-1212165-15179170.07 (0.03 to 0.11)†‡16.88>12-24183-102060.13 (−0.06 to 0.32)‡2.75>242248-212370.08 (0.01 to 0.15)‡¶2.47Age at assessment, y0-4100-4830.38 (0.00 to 0.76)‡0.34>4-12843-262970.12 (0.01 to 0.24)‡¶7.96>12-1813604-14636180.06 (0.03 to 0.10)†‡10.35>1849-100920.12 (−0.16 to 0.41)‡0.07Time in family, y0-4100-4830.38 (0.00 to 0.76)0.34>4-8247-231050.17 (0.04 to 0.31)‡¶6.75>8-122148-93140.09 (0.02 to 0.17)‡¶1.31>1212101-15033180.06 (0.02 to 0.10)‡§8.52DesignControl groupTotal No. in norm group13913-12963160.07 (0.03 to 0.10)†‡11.92General population2382-10438110.08 (0.01 to 0.14)‡¶6.96Classmates193-17320.25 (0.05 to 0.46)‡1.14Unrelated siblings11338-235230.05 (0.01 to 0.10)‡0.16Norm group683-5359140.12 (0.03 to 0.21)‡§9.33Country of studyNorth America230-8170.18 (−0.11 to 0.47)‡3.01Other countries14366-18241230.07 (0.04 to 0.11)†‡19.03Publication outletJournal articles14392-15779230.07 (0.04 to 0.11)†‡20.95Reports, books204-254370.11 (−0.03 to 0.26)‡1.29Abbreviation: NA, no studies were available.*The effect size and confidence intervals (CIs) are approximations.†P<.001.‡Fixed effects.§P<.01.&par;Random effects.¶P<.05.Compared with nonadopted controls, international adoptees showed more total behavior problems (d, 0.11; Figure 1). Combined effect size and CIs computed with the jackknife procedure remained the same. With the trim-and-fill procedure, a publication bias was found in this meta-analysis (Lo, 13), resulting in an adjusted effect of d, 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.09). The fail-safe number was k = 577. Compared with nonadopted controls, international adoptees presented more externalizing problems (d, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.07-0.13) in a homogeneous set of studies. The jackknife procedure yielded a similar point estimate and the same CIs. With the trim-and-fill procedure, 3 studies were trimmed and replaced (Lo, 3), resulting in an adjusted effect of 0.09 (95% CI, 0.05-0.12). The fail-safe number was k = 162. International adoptees presented more internalizing problems (d, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.11) in a homogeneous set of studies. The jackknife procedure produced the same combined effect size and CIs. No publication bias was found (Lo, 0), and the fail-safe number was k = 84. For behavior problems, all effect sizes were small.Figure 1.Meta-analysis of Total Behavior Problems in International AdopteesError bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs); f, female; m, male. Including 15 790 international adoptees and 30 450 nonadopted controls, international adoptees showed more total behavior problems (d, 0.11; P<.001; 95% CI, 0.08-0.14; k, 47) in a homogeneous set of studies (Q, 61.85; P=.06).Finally, international adoptees were overrepresented in mental health referrals (d, 0.37; Figure 2) and this effect size was medium. The jackknife procedure produced the same combined effect size and CIs. No publication bias was found (Lo, 0) and the fail-safe number was k = 195. The 7 studies in this meta-analysis reported on serious problems (Table 3): 4 studies found that international adoptees were more often receiving psychiatric treatmentin a clinicthan nonadopted children, and 3 studies found that international adoptees were placed out of the home into a residential settingor mental health facilitymore often than nonadopted controls.Figure 2.Meta-analysis of Mental Health Referrals in International AdopteesError bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Including 3073 international adoptees and 47 848 nonadopted controls, international adoptees were overrepresented in mental health referrals (d, 0.37; P<.001; 95% CI, 0.17-0.57; k= 7) in a heterogeneous set of studies (Q, 42.53; P<.001).International vs Domestic AdopteesWe examined whether international adoptees are at higher risk for behavior problems and clinical referrals than domestic adoptees (Table 4). As several subsets of studies in this meta-analysis were heterogeneous, we present the 85% CIs to test the significance of moderators. No publication bias was present in the meta-analyses of international adoptees vs domestic adoptees (Lo= 0 for total behavior problems [fail-safe, k= 2268], for externalizing [fail-safe, k= 1745], and for internalizing problems [fail-safe, k= 1768]). Preliminary analyses showed no differences for sex and age at adoptive placement; therefore, all analyses were conducted without these covariates. However, the sets of international and domestic adoption studies differed in the number of studies that reported evidence of extreme adversity before adoptive placement. Preadoption adversity was described more often in international adoption studies (18 of 21 studies of total behavior problems, 7 of 8 studies of externalizing and internalizing problems, and a single study of mental health referrals).Contrary to our expectations, we found that international adoptees showed significantly fewer total behavior problems compared with domestic adoptees, for the 85% CIs of the subsets were not overlapping (d, 0.11; 85% CI, 0.09-0.13 vs d, 0.20; 85% CI, 0.14-0.27, respectively; Table 4). Also, international adoptees showed significantly fewer externalizing problems than domestic adoptees (d, 0.10; 85% CI, 0.08-0.13 vs d, 0.34; 85% CI, 0.26-0.42, respectively) and also significantly fewer internalizing problems (d, 0.07; 85% CI, 0.05-0.10 vs d, 0.23; 85% CI, 0.13-0.32, respectively).Because all international adoption studies were conducted after 1990, we repeated the same analyses including only the domestic adoption studies conducted after 1990. Again, international adoptees showed significantly fewer total behavior problems than domestic adoptees (d, 0.11; 85% CI, 0.09-0.13; k, 47 vs d, 0.22; 85% CI, 0.14-0.29; k, 40, respectively), fewer externalizing problems (d, 0.10; 85% CI, 0.08-0.13; k, 29 vs d, 0.30; 85% CI, 0.20-0.39; k, 25, respectively), and fewer internalizing problems (d, 0.07; 85% CI, 0.05-0.10; k, 30 vs d, 0.27; 85% CI, 0.16-0.37; k, 24, respectively).International adoptees were significantly less often referred to mental health services compared with domestic adoptees (d, 0.37; 85% CI, 0.22-0.52 vs d, 0.81; 85% CI, 0.67- 0.94; respectively; Table 4). However, the set of pertinent studies involving international adoptees in mental health referrals was small (k = 7). Because all international adoption studies were conducted after 1980, we repeated the same analysis including only the domestic adoption studies conducted after 1980. Again, international adoptees were significantly less often referred to mental health services than domestic adoptees (d, 0.37; 85% CI, 0.22-0.52; k, 7 vs d, 0.78; 85% CI, 0.57-1.00; k= 14; respectively).International AdoptionModerator Analyses.For behavior problems, we present fixed models with 95% CIs for the homogeneous set of studies involving international adoptees (Table 5); the Qstatistic was used to test contrasts. The set of international adoption studies for mental health referrals was too small (k = 7) to permit moderator analyses.Sample Characteristics.The following sample characteristics were tested: preadoption adversity, sex, age at adoptive placement, age at assessment, and length of time in the family (Table 5). In 6 out of 9 articles reporting preadoption adversity, children had been adopted from Romanian or Russian orphanages.International adoptees with preadoption adversity showed more total behavior problems than international adoptees without such backgrounds (d, 0.18 vs d, 0.09, respectively; Table 5; contrast: Q1 = 6.46; P= .01) and more externalizing problems (d, 0.17 vs d, 0.08; respectively; Q1= 4.58; P= .03). There was no difference in internalizing problem behavior between international adoptees with and without preadoption adversity (Q1= 0.30; P= .58).We found no significant differences between male and female international adoptees for total behavior problems (Q1= 1.30; P= .25), externalizing problems (Q1= 1.20; P= .27), or internalizing problems (Q1= 0.66; P=.41).For children adopted as infants (0-12 months) compared with children adopted after their first birthday, there were no differences for total behavior problems (Q1= 2.27; P= .13), externalizing problems (Q1= 3.44; P= .06), or internalizing problems (Q1= 0.23; P= .63; Table 5). Examining children adopted before or after 24 months resulted in similar, nonsignificant outcomes.As the category of adulthood (>18 years) consisted of only 1 to 2 studies (Table 5), we restricted the analyses of age at assessment to adolescence (12-18 years) vs early and middle childhood (0-12 years). Contrary to our expectations, we found that international adoptees presented fewer total behavior problems in adolescence compared with international adoptees in early and middle childhood (d, 0.09 vs d, 0.23; respectively; Q1= 13.89; P<.001). Externalizing problems did not differ for adolescence vs early and middle childhood (d, 0.09 vs d, 0.17; respectively; Q1= 2.76; P= .10), nor did internalizing problems (d, 0.06 vs d, 0.14; respectively; Q1= 2.04; P= .15).Children who had been with their adoptive family for more than 12 years showed fewer total behavior problems than children who had been with the family for less than 12 years (d, 0.05 vs d, 0.21; respectively; Q1= 24.07; P<.001) and fewer externalizing problems (d, 0.07 vs d, 0.18; respectively; Q1= 8.52; P= .003). For internalizing problems, the contrast was not significant (d, 0.06 vs d, 0.12; respectively; Q1= 2.82; P=.09).Design.Studies that made use of a norm group as a comparison group for the international adoptees did not differ from studies that used a general population sample, classmates, or siblings (Table 5). For total behavior problems, one of the subsets was heterogeneous (studies not using a norm group) so the 85% CIs were inspected to test for significance. Because the CIs were overlapping (norm group, d, 0.18; 85% CI, 0.14-0.23 vs no norm group, d, 0.13; 85% CI, 0.08-0.18), there was no difference between the 2 subsets. For externalizing and internalizing problems, the 2 subsets were homogeneous and these contrasts were tested with the Qstatistic. There was no significant difference between studies using norm groups or other control groups for externalizing problems (Q1= 2.28; P= .13) or internalizing problems (Q1= 1.30; P= .25).Country of study was a significant moderator (Table 5). Studies conducted in North America reported more total behavior problems for international adoptees than studies outside North America (d, 0.23 vs d, 0.10; respectively; Q1= 4.69; P= .03). Studies in and outside North America did not differ with respect to externalizing problems (Q1= 0.04; P= .85) or internalizing problems (Q1= 0.50; P= .48).Publication Outlet.We examined the 85% CIs as one of the subsets for total problems was heterogeneous. Confidence intervals of both subsets were overlapping: journal articles (d, 0.16; 85% CI, 0.11-0.20) did not differ from other outlets (d, 0.11; 85% CI; 0.06-0.16). The contrasts for externalizing problems (Q1= 0.04; P= .84) and internalizing problems (Q1= 0.31; P= .58) also showed that journal articles did not differ from other outlets.COMMENTAs expected from their less optimal start in life, international adoptees presented with more total, externalizing, and internalizing behavior problems than their nonadopted peers and are overrepresented in mental health services. However, the rate of behavior problems is modest, indicating that most international adoptees are well-adjusted. These findings converge with those of a large Swedish cohort studythat found that the majority of international adoptees are well-adjusted and with those of other studies of international adoptees in the socioemotionaland cognitive domains.These positive outcomes may be partly explained by the characteristics of the families adopting children from abroad. These adoptive parents are highly motivated to raise children and they usually have ample opportunities to invest in their children’s development because of their relatively high socioeconomic status.International adoptees, however, experience substantially more mental health referrals, pointing to a relatively large minority of international adoptees seeking clinical treatment. The threshold to seek professional help, however, might be lower for adoptive parents than for birth parentsbecause of the adoptive parents’ higher socioeconomic status or their expectations of the adopted child.Having adopted, they are familiar with mental health resources and how to get services.Furthermore, schools may be more aware of the child’s adoptive status and more likely to recommend referral or to report behavior problems. Also, normative crises in adopted children, eg, coming to terms with the loss of their birth family,may be misperceived as behavior problems. Finally, a positive explanation of our outcomes may be that the higher referral rate did in fact prevent higher rates of behavior problems, resulting in the small effect sizes for problem behavior.In contrast to popular beliefs and hypotheses expressed in empirical studies,international adoptions show better behavioral and mental health outcomes than domestic adoptions. Our findings indicate that this is not explained by lower rates of preadoption adversity experienced by the international adoptees compared with domestic adoptees, as evidence of pre-adoption malnutrition, neglect, or abuse was reported more often in the international adoption studies. It is possible that in many transracial international adoptions, physical differences between parents and children are so obvious that the fact of the adoption was never a secret, resulting in more communication and trust in the family. Families choosing international (transracial) adoption may have different parenting qualities compared with parents in more traditional adoptions. No systematic information about parenting abilities is available in our data set. However, in most countries parents undergo a screening procedure to assess their potential fitness for parenting and receive (some) preparation. Finally, genetic risks may differ between international and domestic adoption. Whereas children in international adoption are often adopted because of lack of resources and poverty,relinquishment in domestic adoption may (also) involve mental health problems in the birth parent,such as substance abuse or psychiatric disorders. Although reasons for relinquishment may overlap, genetic risks predisposing for mental health problems may be less prevalent in international adoptees.The relatively positive outcomes of international adoption do not imply that international adoption should be preferred to domestic adoption in the sending countries. In our meta-analyses, domestic adoptions in developing countries could not be included due to the lack of empirical studies.Our meta-analytic outcomes confirm the hypothesized greater risk for internationally adopted children with backgrounds of extreme deprivation, neglect, malnutrition, or abuse. Clinicians and mental health professionals should be aware of this risk and support adoptive parents with preventive or therapeutic help.In contrast to some evidence,internationally adopted males do not present more behavior problems than internationally adopted females. Furthermore, we did not find convincing evidence that age at adoptive placement is a decisive factor for international adoptees’ behavior problems. Contrary to previous research,we found that international adoptees showed fewer total behavior problems in adolescence compared with international adoptees in early and middle childhood. Although it might be true in general that adoptees are questioning their identity more intensively in adolescence,international adoptees may begin struggling with identity issues much earlier because racial and cultural differences between adoptive parents and adoptees are more obvious than in domestic adoption. Some behavior problems in adoptees may occur on a different time schedule than in nonadopted children. For example, identity issues may surface earlier in adoptees than in their nonadopted peers. Therefore, mental health professionals should be aware of increased rates of behavior problems in families with international adoptees during the years before adolescence. We also found that children who had been with the adoptive family for more than 12 years showed fewer total and externalizing behavior problems than children who had been in the family for less than 12 years. This may indicate that a longer stay in the adoptive family offers children opportunities to recover from their problem behavior. Finally, we found more total behavior problems in studies conducted in North America. On the basis of our data base, we are unable to suggest explanations for this finding. Future research should examine this issue.Limitations of our series of meta-analyses are, first, the small number of studies of international adoptees with mental health referrals. More studies are needed to consolidate these findings. However, the meta-analytic findings on the behavioral outcomes of international adoptees converge with the mental health referral findings. The small number of studies on mental health referrals of international adoptees also precluded moderator analyses. A second limitation is that our definitions of international and domestic adoption and preadoption adversity may have introduced bias, as in some domestic adoption studies a minority of international adoptees were included and in samples without adversity some adoptees may have been neglected or abused. However, if such bias had been present, it would have resulted in an underestimation of our effects. Based on the positive outcomes for international adoptees and the negative outcomes for preadoption adversity, even larger differences in favor of international adoptees without preadoption adversity may be expected in totally unbiased samples. A third limitation is that we used only the first assessment of longitudinal adoption studies, possibly resulting in a bias toward fewer behavior problems. However, we know of only 1 studyfor which this would apply, restricting the possibility of such a bias to a minimum. A fourth limitation is that our findings may not generalize to the large group of Chinese children adopted in the United States, Canada, and Europe in recent years because their development has not been studied well yet (with one exception). A fifth limitation is that we were unable to compare the international adoptees and nonadopted controls on demographic background variables although in most studies it was reported that adoptive parents were somewhat older and more highly educated than the parents of the controls.It is unknown how the demographics would affect the outcomes of our meta-analysis. A final limitation is that we only included studies with nonadopted control groups, thus excluding articles comparing international adoptees with other comparison groups, such as children in foster care or children remaining in institutions. In a meta-analysis of adopted children’s cognitive development, we found that adopted children outperformed their peers and siblings who remained in the children’s home or birth family.In the current meta-analysis, such a comparison was not possible because there were no studies available addressing this issue. For future studies, it is important to compare internationally adopted children not only with nonadopted controls but also with these other relevant groups.In sum, our series of meta-analyses showed that the majority of international adoptees are well-adjusted although more adoptees are referred to mental health services compared with nonadopted controls. Contrary to common opinion, international adoptees present fewer behavior problems than domestic adoptees, and they have lower rates of mental health referral. Unexpectedly, age at adoption does not appear to be important for the development of behavioral problems. International adoptees with backgrounds of extreme adversity are at risk for more behavior problems, in particular externalizing problems, compared with international adoptees without preadoption adversity. Clinicians should be aware of higher risks for problem behaviors in domestic adoptees and in international adoptees who experienced neglect or maltreatment in the preadoptive period.Corresponding Author:Femmie Juffer, PhD, Centre for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, NL-2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands (juffer@fsw.leidenuniv.nl).Author Contributions:Drs Juffer and van IJzendoorn had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.Study concept and design: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Acquisition of data: Juffer.Analysis and interpretation of data: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Drafting of the manuscript: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Statistical analysis: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Obtained funding: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Financial Disclosures:None reported.Funding/Support:The Adoption Meta-Analysis Project (ADOPTION MAP) is supported by grants from Stichting VSBfonds, Stichting Fonds 1818, Nationaal Fonds Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, and Stichting Kinderpostzegels in cooperation with the Adoptie Driehoek Onderzoeks Centrum. Dr van IJzendoorn is suppported by the NWO/Spinoza prize of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.Role of the Sponsors:The study sponsors had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in the writing of the report.Acknowledgment:We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Caroline W. Klein Poelhuis and Angy Wong.REFERENCESPSelmanIntercountry adoption in the new millennium; the “quiet migration” revisited.Popul Res Policy Rev200221205225PSelmanThe demographic history of intercountry adoption.In: Selman P, ed. Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives. London, England: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 2000WDuncanThe Hague Convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption.In: Selman P, ed. Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives.London, England: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 2000Immigrant visas issued to orphans coming to the U.S.US State Department Web site. Available at: http://www.travel.state.gov/family/adoption/stats/stats_451.html. Accessed April 3, 2005MRGunnarJBruceHDGrotevantInternational adoption of institutionally reared children: research and policy.Dev Psychopathol20001267769311202039TGO’ConnorMRutterCBeckettLKeaveneyJMKreppnerThe effects of global severe privation on cognitive competence: extension and longitudinal follow-up.Child Dev20007137639010834471FCVerhulstMAlthausHJVersluis-den BiemanProblem behavior in international adoptees, I: an epidemiological study.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry199029941032295584HFHarlowThe nature of love.Am Psychol195813673685CMirescuJDPetersEGouldEarly life experience alters response of adult neurogenesis to stress.Nat Neurosci2004784184615273691PVorriaZPapaligouraJDunnEarly experiences and attachment relationships of Greek infants raised in residential group care.J Child Psychol Psychiatry2003441208122014626461DMBrodzinskyA stress and coping model of adoption adjustment.In: Brodzinsky DM, Schechter MD, eds. The Psychology of Adoption.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1990BTizardIntercountry adoption: a review of the evidence.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1991327437561918225JPalaciosYSanchezNinos adoptados y no adoptados: un estudio comparativo.Anuario de Psicologia1996716385MHVan IJzendoornFJufferCWKleinAdoption and cognitive development: a meta-analytic comparison of adopted and non-adopted children’s IQ and school performance.Psychol Bull200513130131615740423MRutterEnglish and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study TeamDevelopmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1998394654769599775MWierzbickiPsychological adjustment of adoptees: a meta-analysis.J Clin Child Psychol199322447454GJStamsFJufferJRispensRAHoksbergenThe development and adjustment of 7-year-old children adopted in infancy.J Child Psychol Psychiatry2000411025103711099119AHjernFLindbladBVinnerljungSuicide, psychiatric illness, and social maladjustment in intercountry adoptees in Sweden: a cohort study.Lancet200236044344812241716NBimmelFJufferMHVan IJzendoornMJBakermans-KranenburgProblem behavior of internationally adopted adolescents: a review and meta-analysis.Harv Rev Psychiatry200311647712868507SACermakLADaunhauerSensory processing in the postinstitutionalized child.Am J Occup Ther1997515005079242855LFisherEWAmesKChisholmLSavoieProblems reported by parents of Romanian orphans adopted to British Columbia.Int J Behav Dev1997206782MCederbladBHoeoekMIrhammarAMMerckeMental health in international adoptees as teenagers and young adults: an epidemiological study.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1999401239124810604402ADamodaranNMehtaChild adoption in India: an overview.In: Selman P, ed. Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives.London: England: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 2000DFStroupJABerlinSCMortonMeta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) groupMeta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.JAMA20002832008201210789670BMullenAdvanced Basic Meta-analysis.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1989TMAchenbachManual for the Child Behavior Checklist 4-18.Burlington: University of Vermont, Dept of Psychiatry; 1991RLoebsteinGKorenPregnancy outcome and neurodevelopment of children exposed in utero to psychoactive drugs: the Motherisk experience.J Psychiatry Neurosci1997221921969183118VGrozeA 1 and 2 year follow-up study of adoptive families and special needs children.Child Youth Serv Rev1996185782DMoherBPhamAJonesDoes quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Lancet19983526096139746022KFSchulzIChalmersRJHayesDGAltmanEmpirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.JAMA19952734084127823387FCVerhulstJVan der Ende“Comorbidity” in an epidemiological sample: a longitudinal perspective.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1993347677838340444JCohenStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences.rev ed. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1988MBorensteinDRothsteinJCohenComprehensive Meta-analysis: A Computer Program for Research Synthesis.Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2000RRosenthalWriting meta-analytic reviews.Psychol Bull1995118183192HGoldsteinMJRHealyThe graphical presentation of a collection of means.J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc1995158175177FRHampelEMRonchettiPJRousseeuwWAStahelRobust Statistics: The Approach Based on Influence Functions.New York, NY: Wiley; 1986SDuvalRTweedieA nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis.J Am Stat Assoc2000958998AJSuttonSJDuvalRLTweedieKRAbramsDRJonesEmpirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses.BMJ20003201574157710845965SMGilbodyFJSongAJEastwoodASuttonThe causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry.Acta Psychiatr Scand200010224124911089723ILAndresenBehavioral and school adjustment of 12-13 year old internationally adopted children in Norway: a research note.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1992334274391564084CBagleyAdoption of native children in Canada: a policy analysis and a research report.In: Altstein H, Simon RJ, eds. Intercountry Adoption: A Multinational Perspective. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers; 1991:55-79RPBarthMBerryAdoption and Disruption: Rates, Risks, and Responses.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter; 1988PBensonASharmaECRoehlkepartainGrowing Up Adopted: A Portrait of Adolescents and Their Families.Minneapolis, Minn: Search Institute; 1994KBerg-KellyJErikssonAdaptation of adopted foreign children at mid-adolescence as indicated by aspects of health and risk taking: a population study.Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry199761992069442998SBogaertsGvan AelstAdolescentie en interculturele adoptie: psycho-sociale integratie in Vlaamse gezinnen.Leuven, Belgium: Garant; 1998MBohmanAdopted Children and Their Families: A Follow-up Study of Adopted Children, Their Background, Environment and Adjustment.Stockholm, Sweden: Propius; 1970LDBordersLKBlackBKPasleyAre adopted children and their parents at greater risk for negative outcomes?Fam Relat199847237241LDBordersJMPennyFPortnoyAdult adoptees and their friends: current functioning and psychosocial well-being.Fam Relat200049407418PKBotvarA Second Chance: International Adoptees in Norway.Diaconia, Norway: Diaconia College Centre; 1994AEBrandPMBrinichBehavior problems and mental health contacts in adopted, foster, and nonadopted children.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1999401221122910604400DMBrodzinskyDESchechterAMBraffLMSingerPsychological and academic adjustment in adopted children.J Consult Clin Psychol1984525825906470284DBrodzinskyJCHittDSmithImpact of parental separation and divorce on adopted and nonadopted children.Am J Orthopsychiatry1993634514618372912WBCareyWLLiptonRAMyersTemperament in adopted and foster babies.Child Welfare1974533523594833628JCastleCBeckettCGroothuesSTEraInfant adoption in England: a longitudinal account of social and cognitive progress.Adopt Fostering2000242635NJCohenJCoyneJDuvallAdopted and biological children in the clinic: Family, parental and child characteristics.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1993345455628509494RCookIVatevZMichovaSGolombokThe European study of assisted reproduction families: a comparison of family functioning and child development between Eastern and Western Europe.J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol1997182032129304541MDalenSchool performance among internationally adopted children in Norway.Adopt Q200153958KDeater-DeckardRPlominAn adoption study of etiology of teacher and parent reports of externalizing behavior problems in middle childhood.Child Dev19997014415410191519DKDe JongThe Well-being of Russian and Romanian Intercountry Adoptees in New Zealand.Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University; 2001ADumaretIQ. scholastic performance and behaviour of sibs raised in contrasting environments.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1985265535804019617XFanBCMillerMChristensenQuestionnaire and interview inconsistencies exaggerated differences between adopted and non-adopted adolescents in a national sample.Adopt Q20026727WFeigelmanAdopted adults: comparisons with persons raised in conventional families.Marriage Fam Rev199725199223DMFergussonMLynskeyLJHorwoodThe adolescent outcomes of adoption: a 16-year longitudinal study.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1995365976157650085ROFischMKBilekASDeinardPNChangGrowth, behavioral, and psychologic measurements of adopted children: the influences of genetic and socioeconomic factors in a prospective study.J Pediatr197689494500956980NForsten-LindmanForeign Born Children's Socioemotional Adjustment to Finland: Intercountry Adoptees and Vietnamese Refugees.Abo, Finland: Abo University; 1993DBGardnerGRHawkesLGBurchinalNoncontinuous mothering in infancy and development in later childhood.Child Dev19613222523413703601HGeerarsRACHoksbergenJRoodaGeadopteerden op weg naar volwassenheid: De integratie van 68 Thaise jongeren in de Nederlandse samenleving.Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 1995RDGoldneyMDonaldMGSawyerRJKoskyEmotional health of Indonesian adoptees living in Australian families.Aust N Z J Psychiatry1996305345398887706SGolombokFMacCallumEGoodmanThe “test-tube” generation: parent-child relationships and the psychological well-being of in vitro fertilization children at adolescence.Child Dev20017259960811333087JHodgesBTizardIQ and behavioural adjustment of ex-institutional adolescents.J Child Psychol Psychiatry19893053752925821RACHoksbergenFStoutjesdijkKRijkCvan DijkumAdoptie van Roemeense kinderen in Nederland.Pedagogiek2002225569JLHoopesEAShermanEALawderRGAndrewsKDLowerA Follow-up Study of Adoptions (Vol. II): Post-Placement Functioning of Adopted Children.New York, NY: Child Welfare League of America; 1970JLHoopesLBAlexanderPSilverGOberNKirbyFormal adoption of the developmentally vulnerable African-American child: ten-year outcomes.Marriage Fam Rev199725131144JAHowardSLSmithSDRyanA comparative study of child welfare adoptions with other types of adopted children and birth children.Adopt Q20047130SJudgeDeterminants of parental stress in families adopting children from Eastern Europe.Fam Relat200352241248WJKimYJShinMPCareyComparison of Korean-American adoptees and biological children of their adoptive parents: a pilot study.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev19992922122810080964JELansfordRCeballoAAbbeyAJStewartDoes family structure matter? a comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households.J Marriage Fam200163840851RLevy-ShiffPsychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: family environment and adoption-related correlates.Int J Behav Dev20012597104BWLindholmJTouliatosPsychological adjustment of adopted and nonadopted children.Psychol Rep1980463073107367547ELLipmanDROffordYARacineMHBoylePsychiatric disorders in adopted children: a profile from the Ontario Child Health Study.Can J Psychiatry1992376276331477821JLoganPMEMorallHChambersIdentification of risk factors for psychological disturbance in adopted children.Child Abuse Rev19987154164SMarcovitchSGoldbergAGoldJWashingtonDeterminants of behavioural problems in Romanian children adopted in Ontario.Int J Behav Dev1997201731BMaughanSCollishawAPicklesSchool achievement and adult qualifications among adoptees: a longitudinal study.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1998396696859690931EEPinderhughesShort-term placement outcomes for children adopted after age five.Child Youth Serv Rev199820223249BPrielSMelamed-HassABesserBKantorAdjustment among adopted children: the role of maternal self-reflectiveness.Fam Relat200049389396JWRojewskiMSShapiroMShapiroParental assessment of behavior in Chinese adoptees during early childhood.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev200031799611033930TRosenwaldIntercountry adoptive families in Western Australia: the well-being of their four to sixteen year-old adoptees.Joondalup, Western Australia: Cowan University; 1994ARSharmaMKMcGuePLBensonThe emotional and behavioral adjustment of United States adopted adolescents, I: an overview.Child Youth Serv Rev19961883100ARSharmaMKMcGuePLBensonThe psychological adjustment of United States adopted adolescents and their nonadopted siblings.Child Dev1998697918029680685LMSingerDMBrodzinskyDRamsayMSteirEWatersMother-infant attachment in adoptive families.Child Dev198556154315514075872MASmyerMGatzNLSimiNLPedersenChildhood adoption: long-term effects in adulthood.Psychiatry1998611912059823029HEStorsbergenPsychische gezondheid en welbevinden van volwassen Grieks geadopteerden in Nederland: de invloed van het geadopteerd zijn.Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2004PFSullivanJEWellsJABushnellAdoption as a risk factor for mental disorders.Acta Psychiatr Scand1995921191247572257HTsitsikasCCoulacoglouPMitsotakisADrivaA follow-up study of adopted children.In: Hibbs ED, et al, eds. Children and Families: Studies in Prevention and Intervention. Madison, Conn: International Universities Press; 1988:399-414SBWarrenLower threshold for referral for psychiatric treatment for adopted adolescents.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry1992315125171592785HWitmerEHerzogEAWeinsteinMESullivanIndependent Adoptions: A Follow-up Study.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1963EFBorgattaDFanshelBehavioral Characteristics of Children Known to Psychiatric Outpatient Clinics.New York, NY: Child Welfare League of America; 1965PMBrinichEBBrinichAdoption and adaptation.J Nerv Ment Dis19821704894937097266MCederblad“Hög” ålder vid adoption—största risken för att utveckla anpassningsproblem I tonåren.Lakartidningen199188108110852016941IDéry-AlfredssonMKatzUtländska adoptivbarn på PBU.Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University; 1986CKDeutschOverrepresentation of adoptees in children with the attention deficit disorder.Behav Genet1982122312387126106LRDicksonWMHeffronCParkerChildren from disrupted and adoptive homes on an inpatient unit.Am J Orthopsychiatry1990605946022248370BTEidusonJBLivermoreComplications in therapy with adopted children.Am J Orthopsychiatry195323795802DGoldbergSNWolkindPatterns of psychiatric disorder in adopted girls: a research note.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1992339359401634596JDGoodmanRMSilbersteinWMandellAdopted children brought to child psychiatric clinic.Arch Gen Psychiatry19639451456JDGoodmanNRMagnoAdoption and its influence during adolescence: a comparison of court and community-referred psychiatric patients.J Med Soc N J1975729229281058982RACHoksbergenGCMBakker-van ZeilAdoptiefkinderen bij Medisch Opvoedkundige Bureaus (MOB) en Jeugd Psychiatrische Diensten (JPD).In: Hoksbergen RAC, Walenkamp H, eds. Adoptie uit de Kinderschoenen.Deventer, the Netherlands: Van Loghum Slaterus; 1983:223-42RACHoksbergenJJTMSpaanBCWaardenburgBittere ervaringen: uithuisplaatsingen van buitenlandse adoptiekinderen.Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1988NLHoldenAdoption and eating disorders: a high-risk group?Br J Psychiatry19911588298331873634PHolmanSome factors in the aetiology of maladjustment in children: a comparison of 100 children “ascertained” as in need of special educational treatment and 100 others referred to a child guidance clinic.J Ment Science195399654688MHumphreyCOunstedAdoptive families referred for psychiatric advice, I: the children.Br J Psychiatry196310959960814054197GKJamesonPsychiatric disorder in adopted children in Texas.Tex Med19676383886044221LJeromeOverrepresentation of adopted children attending a children's mental health centre.Can J Psychiatry1986315265313756755JJungmannAdoption unter Vorbehalt? zur psychischen Problematik von Adoptivkindern.Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr1980292252307454676TKennyRBaldwinJBMackieIncidence of minimal brain injury in adopted children.Child Welfare1967462429BKKetchumReports on study of adopted children.Child Welfare196443249SKotsopoulosACoteLJosephNPentlandPsychiatric disorders in adopted children: a controlled study.Am J Orthopsychiatry1988586086123265858HLPiersmaAdopted children and inpatient psychiatric treatment: a retrospective study.Psychiatr Hosp198718153158MLKPringleThe incidence of some supposedly adverse family conditions and of left-handedness in schools for maladjusted children.Br J Educ Psychol196131183193SAReeceBLevinPsychiatric disturbances in adopted children: a descriptive study.Soc Work196813101111GARogenessSKHoppeCAMacedoCFischerPsychopathology in hospitalized, adopted children.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry1988276286313182629MDSchechterObservations on adopted children.Arch Gen Psychiatry19603213214442505NSeniorEHimadiEmotionally disturbed, adopted, inpatient adolescents.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev1985151891974028879NMSimonAGSenturiaAdoption and psychiatric illness.Am J Psychiatry19661228588685902496DMSweenyDTGasbarroMRGluckA descriptive study of adopted children seen in a child guidance center.Child Welfare196342345349PWToussiengThoughts regarding the ethiology of psychological difficulties in adopted children.Child Welfare1962415965, 71PhDATreffersAWGoedhartEKoudijsPsychosociale clusters in de kinder-en jeugdpsychiatrie: kinderen in een afwijkende gezinssituatie.Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid19981111031119FCVerhulstHJMVersluis-den-BiemanBuitenlandse Adoptiekinderen: Vaardigheden en Probleemgedrag.Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum; 1989KJZuckerSJBradleyAdoptee overrepresentation among clinic-referred boys with gender identity disorder.Can J Psychiatry199843104010439868571HJMVersluis-den BiemanFCVerhulstSelf-reported and parent reported problems in adolescent international adoptees.J Child Psychol Psychiatry199536141114288988275 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of International Adoptees

JAMA , Volume 293 (20) – May 25, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/behavior-problems-and-mental-health-referrals-of-international-t4dkD6nS3g

References (121)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.293.20.2501
pmid
15914751
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ContextInternational adoption involves more than 40 000 children a year moving among more than 100 countries. Before adoption, international adoptees often experience insufficient medical care, malnutrition, maternal separation, and neglect and abuse in orphanages.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of international adoption on behavioral problems and mental health referrals.Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE, PsychLit, and ERIC from 1950 to January 2005 using the terms adopt*combined with (behavior) problem, disorder, (mal)adjustment, (behavioral) development, clinicalor psychiatric (referral), or mental health; conducted a manual search of the references of articles, books, book chapters, and reports; and consulted experts for relevant studies. The search was not limited to English-language publications.Study SelectionStudies that provided sufficient data to compute differences between adoptees (in all age ranges) and nonadopted controls were selected, resulting in 34 articles on mental health referrals and 64 articles on behavior problems.Data ExtractionData on international adoption, preadoption adversity, and other moderators were extracted from each study and inserted in the program Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA). Effect sizes (d) for the overall differences between adoptees and controls regarding internalizing, externalizing, total behavior problems, and use of mental health services were computed. Homogeneity across studies was tested with the Qstatistic.Data SynthesisAmong 25 281 cases and 80 260 controls, adoptees (both within and between countries) presented more behavior problems, but effect sizes were small (d, 0.16-0.24). Adoptees (5092 cases) were overrepresented in mental health services and this effect size was large (d, 0.72). Among 15 790 cases and 30  450 controls, international adoptees showed more behavior problems than nonadopted controls, but effect sizes were small (d, 0.07-0.11). International adoptees showed fewer total, externalizing and internalizing behavior problems than domestic adoptees. Also, international adoptees were less often referred to mental health services (d, 0.37) than domestic adoptees (d, 0.81). International adoptees with preadoption adversity showed more total problems and externalizing problems than international adoptees without evidence of extreme deprivation.ConclusionsMost international adoptees are well-adjusted although they are referred to mental health services more often than nonadopted controls. However, international adoptees present fewer behavior problems and are less often referred to mental health services than domestic adoptees.International adoption is an increasing phenomenon involving more than 40 000 children a year moving between more than 100 countries.By setting uniform norms and standards, the 1993 Hague Conventionendorsed and facilitated international adoption. International adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be found in the country of origin. In 2004, most international adoptions in the United States (22 884) were from China, Russia, Guatemala, South Korea, and Kazakhstan,whereas most international adoptions in Europe (15 847 in 2003) were from China, Russia, Colombia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria.Since the 1970s, domestic adoptions in North America and Europe drastically decreased, whereas at the same time the number of international adoptions increased.International adoptees often experience inadequate prenatal and perinatal medical care, maternal separation, psychological deprivation, insufficient health services, neglect, abuse, and malnutrition in orphanages or poor families before adoptive placement.Animal models have shown that early maternal separation and deprivation can seriously harm infant functioning and later development.Psychological deprivation in orphanages can result in maladjustment in children.In addition, after adoptive placement, adoptees have to cope with integrating the loss of their culture and birth family into their lives.In contrast to domestic adoptees who are adopted within the same country, international adoptees may face problems regarding their divergent identity,as most international adoptees are raised by parents who do not share their racial and cultural background.Adoption usually offers improved medical, physical, educational, and psychological opportunities for institutionalized children,and research has documented children’s substantial recovery from deprivation after adoption,which may partly be due to the possibility that some adopted children were selected for adoption because they seemed brighter or had better social skills. Nevertheless, several studies found that adopted children were overrepresented in mental health populations and showed more externalizing disorders.Some studies found more mental health problems in international adoptees compared with nonadopted controls, in particular in male adoptees,in adolescence,and in children placed beyond infancy.However, the majority of adoptees were functioning well.In a large national cohort study in Sweden involving more than 11 000 international adoptees, a significantly higher risk of suicide, psychiatric illness, and social maladjustment was found compared with nonadopted controls although most adoptees were doing well.The authors stated that further studies with less severe outcomes are needed as the main differences between adoptees and nonadopted controls were found in only a small number of international adoptees.We report the first meta-analyses on behavior problems and mental health referrals of international adoptees comparing them to nonadopted controls and domestic adoptees. We hypothesized that international adoptees present more behavior problems and are referred to mental health services more often than nonadopted controlsor domestic adoptees.We hypothesized that those with preadoption adversity,older ages at international adoptive placement (>12 months),and maleswould have an increased risk for behavior problems and mental health referrals. International adoptees were also expected to show more behavior problems in adolescence compared with the years before adolescence.We studied domestic adoptions in Western countries only because the increasing domestic adoptions in developing countries, eg, India,have not been systematically studied yet.METHODSSelection of StudiesThe guidelines published by Stroup et alfor the meta-analysis of observational studies were followed. The aims of our meta-analysis were (1) to compare all adoptees with nonadopted controls; (2) to compare international adoptees with nonadopted controls; (3) to compare international adoptees with domestic adoptees; and (4) to examine moderators for the international adoption outcomes. Empirical studies documenting adoptees’ behavior problems and use of mental health services were collected systematically, using 3 search strategies.First, MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine), PsychLit (Psychological Literature), and ERIC (Education Resource Information Center) were searched for case-control studies published between 1950 and January 2005 with the key words adopt*, combined with (behavior) problem(s), disorder(s), (mal)adjustment, (behavioral) development, clinicalor psychiatric (referral), or mental health. Second, the references of the collected journal articles, books, book chapters, and reports were searched for relevant studies. Third, experts in the field were asked for relevant studies. The search was not limited to English-language publications. Our selection criteria were broad in order to include as many studies as possible. Adoptees in all age groups were included, from early childhood through adulthood. In case of a longitudinal study, the first assessment with adequate data was used to ensure that every adoptee was counted only once in the pertinent meta-analyses. Similarly, a study sample described in several articles or chapters was used only once. We included studies using the Child Behavior CheckListor related measures to measure problem behavior. Studies involving clinically referred adoptees were included in so far as their rate of mental health referrals could be compared with the rate of adoptees in the general population. We excluded studies that exclusively sampled adopted children exposed to alcohol or drugs in utero,physically or mentally handicapped children, and other special needs children, such as hard-to-place children.Data ExtractionData were entered into a customized meta-analytic database. We used a detailed coding system to extract from every study data on sample characteristics, design, publication outlet, and information on behavioral problems or mental health referrals. Study characteristics and study results were coded independently. The main coder of the study characteristics was blinded to the meta-analytic study results and had no previous familiarity with the adoption field.The following sample characteristics were extracted: sex, age at adoptive placement, age at assessment, duration of time with the adoptive family, evidence that the participants in the study were international adoptees, and evidence of preadoption adversity. If available, we included findings for males and females (in case this was not reported, the study was placed in the category of mixed) or different age groups separately, considering these groups as subsamples of the same study. We coded whether the adoptees were placed for adoption between 0 and 12 months, 12 and 24 months, or older than 24 months (or NA, not available, if data were not reported or extractable). We also coded the participants’ age at the time of the assessment: between 0 and 4 years, 4 and 12 years, 12 and 18 years, or older than 18 years (or NA). We coded whether the adoptees had been with the adoptive family for 0 to 4 years, more than 4 to 8 years, more than 8 to 12 years, or more than 12 years. We also extracted whether the adoptees were placed internationally or not. Studies were coded as an international adoption study if the report indicated that all participants were adopted internationally. Preadoption adversity was coded if at least 50% of a sample experienced extreme deprivation, such as serious neglect, malnutrition, and/or abuse. As most adoptees experienced at least some deprivation before adoptive placement and because preadoption histories were not known with certainty in most cases, our index of adversity must be considered as a proxy for the most extreme preadoption circumstances.The following design characteristics were extracted: whether a nonadopted norm group (eg, Child Behavior Checklist norms) or other control group (a general population sample, classmates, or siblings) was used in the study, and the sample sizes of the adoption and control group. Studies that did not include a nonadopted control group were not included in the meta-analysis. Also, country of study was extracted, distinguishing between studies conducted in North America vs other countries. Finally, year of publication was extracted, analyzing studies published before 1959, during 1960-1969, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990 or later. Quality of study, as outlined for experimental research,was not coded because some crucial criteria, eg, randomization, are not applicable to nonexperimental research. However, sample size was accounted for in the study outcomes and publication outlet was coded as proxy of study quality.Publication outlet was assessed by distinguishing between studies published in refereed scientific journals and in other scientific reports, books, and book chapters. Peer-reviewed journals may set higher standards than nonrefereed outlets. Alternatively, scientific journals may be more hesitant in accepting studies with small sample sizes, nonsignificant outcomes (resulting in a publication bias, see below), or both than books or chapters.We extracted information on behavior problems, mental health referrals, or both. For behavior problems, we distinguished between total problems, externalizing problems (eg, aggression, delinquency, hyperactivity), and internalizing problems (eg, withdrawn, anxious or depressed).In several studies, scores for externalizing problems and internalizing problems were reported but scores for total behavior problems were lacking. In those cases, a weighted average score was constructed for total problems based on the scores for externalizing and internalizing problems because externalizing and internalizing problems are considered as adequately representing total problems.We also coded for whether the study involved a referred adoption group (eg, referred to a psychiatric clinic), and if so, whether the rate of overrepresentation of mental health referrals could be computed (ie, percentage of adoptees in the clinic population vs percentage of adoptees in the general population). Satisfactory intercoder reliabilities were established (89%; range, 75%-100%; k= 20).Statistical MethodsThe various statistics in the adoption studies were recomputed with Mullen’s advanced basic meta-analysis programand transformed into Cohen d.For each study we thus calculated an effect size (Cohen d): the standardized difference between the means of the adoptive and the nonadoptive group. According to Cohen’scriteria, ds of <0.20 are considered small effects; ds of about 0.50, moderate effects; and ds of about 0.80, large effects. The resulting set of effect sizes were inserted in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA, version 1.025) programthat computed fixed as well as random-effect model parameters and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the point estimate of an effect size. The Qstatistics (provided by CMA) were used to test the homogeneity of the specific set of effect sizes and the significance of moderators.The set of international adoption studies was homogeneous; therefore, we decided to use the combined effect sizes in the context of the fixed-effect models in the meta-analyses of international adoptees. In the total set of studies (international and domestic adoption), random-effect models were used as several subsets were heterogeneous.In the random-effect models, we computed 85% CIs around the point estimate of each set of effect sizes. When testing moderators, inspection of the overlap between these CIs provided a test of the differences between the combined effects of subsets of study effect sizes grouped by moderators. This approach of comparing 85% CIs served as the significance test in the context of a random-effect model for which the Qstatistics are not an adequate index of significance of differences.Nonoverlapping 85% CIs were considered to indicate a significantly different effect size in subsets of study outcomes.Winsorizing was used to redress outlying sample sizes.Also, combined effect sizes and confidence boundaries were recomputed removing 1 study at a time. This method to test the stability of the outcomes is similar to a jackknife procedure that takes an entire sample except for 1 value, and then calculates the test statistic of interest. It repeats the process, each time leaving out a different value, and each time recalculating the test statistic.We used 1 of the methods developed to estimate potential publication bias, namely, the trim-and-fillmethod (available in CMA). Using this method, a funnel plot is constructed of each study’s effect size against its precision (1/SE). These plots should be shaped like a funnel if no publication bias is present. However, since smaller or nonsignificant studies are less likely to be published, studies in the bottom left-hand corner of the plot are often omitted.For the meta-analyses the right-most studies considered to be symmetrically unmatched were trimmed. The trimmed studies were then replaced and their missing counterparts imputed or filled as mirror images of the trimmed outcomes. This then allowed for the computation of an adjusted effect size and CI.Also, a fail-safe number was computed, ie, the number of studies (k) that would be needed to change a significant combined effect size into a nonsignificant outcome.RESULTSWe were able to find 101 subsamples (study outcomes or subsamples coded separately, eg, males and females; hereafter, studies) on total behavior problems, including 25 281 cases and 80 260 controls, 64 studies on externalizing problems and 64 studies on internalizing problems (Table 1and Table 2). We also found 36 studies on mental health referrals (reported in 34 articles; Table 3), including 5092 cases and 75 858 controls. The studies were published in English, Spanish, German, Dutch, and Swedish. The studies were conducted in North America (54%): Canada and the United States; Europe (33%): Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom; Australia and New Zealand (11%); and other countries (2%). The majority of participants in the studies coded as noninternational, domestic adoption studies were placed within the country. A few domestic adoption studies included a minority of international adoptees (eg, 23%or 28%).Table 1.Case-Control Studies With Behavioral DataSourceNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlsAge at Adoption, moAge at Assessment, yStudy PopulationCountry of StudyType of Diagnostic ToolType of Problem BehaviorExternalizingInternalizingTotalAndresen,1992135-13512-2412-18INTNorwayRutter (T)NANAYesBagley,199120-20>2412-18INTCanadaInterview (P/C)YesYesYes*79-43>2412-18 . . . CanadaInterview (P/C)YesYesYes*Barth and Berry,198885-1300>244-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesYesYes*Benson et al,1994881-norm†<1212-18 . . . United StatesYSRYesYesYesBerg-Kelly andEriksson,1997125-9204<1212-18INTSwedenQ90YesYesYes*Bogaerts and van Aelst,199870-75812-2412-18INTBelgiumCBCLYesYesYes*Bohman,1970168-norm†<124-12 . . . SwedenInterview (T)YesYesYes*Borders et al,199872-72NA4-12 . . . United StatesSurveyNANAYesBorders et al,2000100-70NA>18 . . . United StatesCES-DNAYesNABotvar,1994384-688912-24>18INTNorwayHSCLNANAYesBrand andBrinich,1999174-10464<12NA . . . United StatesBPINANAYesBrodzinsky et al,1984130-130<124-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesYesYes*Brodzinsky et al,199361-62<124-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesYesYes*Carey et al,197459-200<120-4 . . . United StatesTQNANAYesCastle et al,200050-norm†<124-12 . . . United KingdomInterview (P)YesNANACederblad et al,1999211-norm†<1212-18INTSwedenCBCLYesYesYesCermak andDaunhauer,199773-7212-244-12INTUnited StatesDSPQNANAYesCohen et al,199323-2012-244-12 . . . CanadaCBCLYesYesYesCook et al,1997131-12512-244-12 . . . EuropeRutter (P)NANAYesDalen,2001193-173<1212-18INTNorwayRutter (T)YesYesYes*Deater-Deckard and Plomin,199978-94<124-12 . . . United StatesCBCLYesNANADe Jong,2001116-norm†>244-12INTNew ZealandCBCLNANAYesDumaret,198535-35<124-12 . . . FranceRutter (T)YesNANAFan et al,2002514-17241NA12-18 . . . United StatesInterview (P/C)YesYesYes*Feigelman,1997101-6258NA12-18 . . . United StatesInterviewNAYesNAFergusson et al,199532-842<1212-18 . . . New ZealandDISCYesYesYes*Fisch et al,197694-188<124-12 . . . United StatesBPNANAYesFisher et al,199721-23<120-4INTCanadaCBCLYesYesYesFisher et al,199734-2312-240-4INTCanadaCBCLYesYesYesForsten-Lindman,199334-5012-244-12INTFinlandBDGHIYesNANAGardner et al,196129-29<1212-18 . . . United StatesCFMASNAYesNAGeerars et al,199568-756<1212-18INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesGoldney et al,199634-23312-2412-18INTAustraliaCBCLYesYesYesGolombok et al,200149-38<124-12 . . . United KingdomSDQNANAYesAbbreviations: BASC, Behavior Assessment System for Children; BDC, Behavior Description Chart; BDGHI, Buss-Durkee Guilt-Hostility Inventory; BP, Behavior Profile; BPI, Behavior Problem Index; BSQ, Behavior Style Questionnaire; C, child report; CBCL, Child Behavior CheckList; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; CFMAS, Children’s Form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale; CTP, California Test of Personality; DIS, Diagnostic Interview Schedule; DISC, Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children; DSM-III, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition; DSPQ, Developmental and Sensory Processing Questionnaire; HSCL, Hopkins Symptom CheckList; IBQ, Infant Behavior Questionnaire; ICD-9; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; INT, sample with 100% international adoptees; NA, data were not reported or not extractable; OARS, Older Adults Resources and Services; Q90, questionnaire on adolescent health habits and risk behavior; QBPC, Quay’s Behavior Problems Checklist; P, parent report; Rutter (P), Rutter Parent scale; Rutter (T), Rutter Teacher Scale; SCL-90, Symptoms CheckList; SCR-90-R, Symptoms Distress Checklist-90-Revised; SDI, Survey Diagnostic Instrument (based on DSM-III); SDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; T, teacher report; TABS, Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale; TQ, temperament questionnaire; YSR, Youth Self-Report. Abbreviations apply to Table 1and Table 2. Ellipses indicate that the sample included predominantly domestic adoptees.*Based on the scores for externalizing and internalizing problems, a weighted average score was constructed for total problems.†Norm indicates the percentage of out-of-home placements in a normative population.Table 2.Case-Control Studies With Behavioral Data*SourceNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlsAge at Adoption, moAge at Assessment, yStudy PopulationCountry of StudyType of Diagnostic ToolType of Problem BehaviorExternalizingInternalizingTotalHjern et al,200211320-2343<1212-18INTSwedenICD-9YesYesYes†Hodges et al,198923-23>2412-18. . .United KingdomRutter (P/T)YesYesYesHoksbergen et al,200280-1172>244-12INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesHoopes et al,1970100-100NA12-18. . .United StatesCTP (T)NANAYesHoopes et al,199724-norm‡12-2412-18. . .United StatesCBCLNANAYesHoward et al,200489-8712-244-12INTUnited StatesBPINANAYesHoward et al,2004481-88<1212-18. . .United StatesBPINANAYesJudge,2003108-621>240-4INTUnited StatesTABSNANAYesKim et al,199918-9<124-12INTUnited StatesCBCLYesYesYesLansford et al,200111-200<1212-18. . .United StatesCBCLYesYesYesLevy-Shiff,200191-91<12>18. . .IsraelSCR-90-RNANAYesLindholm andTouliatos,198041-2991NA4-12. . .United StatesQBPC (T)YesYesYes†Lipman et al,1992104-3185NA4-12. . .CanadaSDINANAYesLogan et al,199862-60112-244-12. . .United KingdomCBCLNANAYesLogan et al,199835-60012-244-12. . .United KingdomCBCLNANAYesMarcovitch et al,199756-norm‡<124-12INTCanadaCBCLNANAYesMaughan et al,1998121-251<124-12. . .United KingdomSurveyNANAYesPalacios andSanchez,1996210-314>244-12. . .SpainRutter (T)YesYesYesPinderhughes,199833-16>244-12. . .United StatesCBCLYesYesYes†Pinderhughes,199833-1712-244-12. . .United StatesCBCLYesYesYes†Priel et al,200050-8012-244-12. . .IsraelCBCLYesYesYes†Rojewski et al,200045-norm‡12-240-4INTUnited StatesBASC (P)YesYesYes†Rosenwald,1994279-2729<124-12INTAustraliaCBCLNANAYesSharma et al,19964464-544312-2412-18. . .United StatesSurveyYesYesYes†Sharma et al,1998881-78<1212-18. . .United StatesYSRYesYesYesSharma et al,199892-norm‡<1212-18INTUnited StatesYSRYesYesYesSinger et al,198520-10<120-4. . .United StatesIBQNANAYesSmyer et al,199860-60<12>18. . .SwedenOARSNANAYesStams et al,2000159-norm‡<124-12INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesStorsbergen,200449-norm‡<12>18INTThe NetherlandsSCL-90NAYesNASullivan et al,199524-1212<12>18. . .New ZealandDIS (DSM-III)YesNAYesTsitsikas et al,198872-72<124-12. . .GreeceBSQNANAYesVerhulst et al,19902148-931>2412-18INTThe NetherlandsCBCLYesYesYesWarren,1992145-3553NA12-18. . .United StatesInterviewNANAYesWitmer et al,1963484-484<124-12. . .United StatesBDC (T)YesYesYes†For abbreviations see footnotes to Table 1.*Ellipses indicate that the sample included predominantly domestic adoptees.†Based on the scores for externalizing and internalizing problems a weighted average score was constructed for total problems.‡Norm indicates the percentage of out-of-home placements in a normative population.Table 3.Studies With Mental Health Referral Data for AdopteesSourceNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlsAge at Adoption, moAge at Assessment, yStudy PopulationCountry of StudyType of Mental Health ReferralBorgatta and Fanshel,1965123-2158NANA. . .United StatesOutpatient psychiatric clinicBrinich and Brinich,198241-826<124-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric instituteCederblad,199184-3916>244-12INTSwedenChild psychiatric clinicDery-Alfredsson and Katz,1986171-9660NA4-12INTSwedenChild psychiatric clinicDeutsch,1982*24-206NA4-12. . .United States and CanadaChild development or pediatric clinicDeutsch,1982*15-185NA4-12. . .United States and CanadaChild development or pediatric clinicDickson et al,199044-33112-2412-18. . .United StatesPsychiatric hospital inpatient unitEiduson and Livermore,19538-72NA4-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric clinicGoldberg and Wolkind,1992200-5600NANA. . .United KingdomPsychiatric clinicGoodman et al,196314-579>244-12. . .United StatesChild psychiatric clinicGoodman and Magno,1975100-2400NANA. . .United StatesChild psychiatric clinicHoksbergen and Bakker-van Zeil,1983199-16754NA4-12INTThe NetherlandsChild guidance or psychiatric treatmentHoksbergen et al,1988349-15522NANAINTThe NetherlandsOut-of-home placements or residential settingsHolden,199118-452<1212-18. . .United KingdomPsychiatric hospitalHolman,195311-189NANA. . .United StatesChild guidance clinic or residential placementHoward et al,200489-8712-244-12INTUnited StatesPlacement in a mental health facilityHoward et al,2004481-88<1212-18. . .United StatesPlacement in a mental health facilityHumphrey and Ounsted,196380-2679<124-12. . .United KingdomPsychiatric hosptitalJameson,196742-34812-24NA. . .United StatesPsychiatric serviceJerome,1986128-1699NA4-12. . .CanadaTreatment in mental health centerJungmann,198028-218212-244-12. . .GermanyPsychiatric clinicKenny et al,196739-961<124-12. . .United StatesPediatric clinicKetchum,196420-176<124-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric hospitalKotsopoulos et al,19889-105<1212-18. . .CanadaPsychiatric servicePiersma,1987134-110212-2412-18. . .United StatesInpatient psychiatric treatmentPringle,1961210-2383NANA. . .United KingdomOut-of-home placement in residential settingReece and Levin,196811-233<124-12. . .United StatesPsychiatric serviceRogeness et al,198866-69712-2412-18. . .United StatesPsychiatric hospitalSchechter,196016-104NANA. . .United StatesPrivate psychiatric practiceSenior and Himadi,198534-126>2412-18. . .United StatesAdolescent psychiatric inpatient unitSimon and Senturia,196635-1330<1212-18. . .United StatesPsychiatric departmentSweeny et al,196321-271<124-12. . .United StatesChild guidance clinicToussieng,196239-318<124-12. . .United StatesOutpatient psychiatric serviceTreffers et al,199845-1907NA4-12INTThe NetherlandsChild psychiatric clinicVerhulst and Versluis-den- Bieman,19892136-norm†NA12-18INTThe NetherlandsOut-of-home placement in residential settingZucker and Bradley,199828-21012-244-12. . .CanadaPsychiatric referralAbreviations: INT, sample with 100% international adoptees; NA, data were not reported or not extractable; ellipses, sample included predominantly domestic adoptees.*Figures are from 2 clinics.†Norm indicates the percentage of out-of-home placements in a normative population.For total behavior problems, the age at assessment was from 0 to 4 years in 7% of the studies; older than 4 to 12 years in 44.5%; older than 12 to 18 years in 44.5%; and more than 18 years in 4%. Age at adoptive placement was from 0 to 12 months in 45% of the studies; more than 12 to 24 months in 21%; more than 24 months in 24%; and not reported in 10%. Separate data were reported for male and female adoptees in 24% of the studies and in 52% of the studies data for mixed groups were reported. The nonadopted control groups consisted of samples from the general population (50% of the studies), classmates (12%), siblings of the adoptees (6%), and norm groups, eg, Child Behavior Checklist norms (32%).For mental health referrals, age at assessment was from 4 to 12 years in 53% of the studies; older than 12 to 18 years in 25%; and not reported in 22%. Age at adoptive placement was from 0 to 12 months in 31% of the studies; more than 12 to 24 months in 19%; more than 24 months in 8%; and not reported in 42%. Distinct data for female and male adoptees were not reported. The nonadopted control groups consisted of samples from the general population (8%) and normative data (92%).Adoptees vs Nonadopted ControlsAnalyzing all adoption studies, we computed effect sizes (d)for the overall differences between adoptees (both within and between countries) and nonadopted controls (Table 4). Compared with nonadopted controls, adoptees showed more total behavior problems (d, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.13-0.24), more externalizing behavior problems (d, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.31), and more internalizing behavior problems (d, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.26), all in heterogeneous sets of studies, but all effect sizes were small.Also, adoptees were overrepresented in mental health referrals (d, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) in a heterogeneous set of studies, and this effect size was large.No publication bias was found in these 4 meta-analyses (Lo, 0 in all cases). The fail-safe number was k= 5251 for total problems, k= 3128 for externalizing problems, k= 2758 for internalizing problems, and k= 7282 for mental health referrals. Combined effect sizes and CIs computed with the jackknife procedure remained the same for all 4 meta-analyses.Table 4.Meta-analytic Results of Studies Comparing Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of Adoptees and Nonadopted ControlsNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlskEffect Size, d(CI)*QTotal behavior problemsTotal set25281-802601010.18 (0.13-0.24)†‡543.91§Adoption typeInternational15790-30450470.11 (0.09-0.13)&par;¶61.85Domestic9491-49810540.20 (0.14-0.27)†¶331.05§Externalizing problemsTotal set22456-47723640.24 (0.16-0.31)†‡367.65§Adoption typeInternational14581-17363290.10 (0.08-0.13)&par;¶28.55Domestic7875-30360350.34 (0.26-0.42)†¶211.75§Internalizing problemsTotal set22483-52579640.16 (0.07-0.26)†‡698.08§Adoption typeInternational14596-18322300.07 (0.05-0.10)&par;¶22.55Domestic7887-34257340.23 (0.13-0.32)†¶352.62§Mental health referralsTotal set5092-75858360.72 (0.57-0.86)†‡405.38§Adoption typeInternational3073-4784870.37 (0.22-0.52)†¶42.53§Domestic2019-28010290.81 (0.67-0.94)†¶321.55§*All effect sizes were statistically significant (P<.001). The effect sizes and confidence intervals (CIs) are approximations.†Random effect.‡95% CI.§P<001.&par;Fixed effect.¶85% CI.International Adoptees vs Nonadopted ControlsThere were 47 studies involving international adoptees reporting on total behavior problems, 29 studies on externalizing problems, 30 studies on internalizing problems (Table 5), and 7 studies reporting on mental health referrals (Table 4). The adopted children came from Romania or Russia,Korea (and other countries),India (and other countries),Colombia (and other countries),Thailand,Indonesia,China,Sri Lanka (and other countries),Greece,and several countries in Asia and South America.Table 5.Meta-analytic Results of Studies Comparing Behavior Problems of International Adoptees and Nonadopted ControlsNo. of Adoptees-No. of Nonadopted ControlskEffect Size, d(CI)*QTotal Behavior ProblemsTotal set15790-30450470.11 (0.09 to 0.13)†‡61.85Preadoption adversityNo13175-24865290.09 (0.05 to 0.12)†‡35.97Yes2615-5585180.18 (0.12 to 0.24)†‡21.04Sex of cohortMale5806-11090170.13 (0.08 to 0.18)†‡20.42Female8810-10711170.09 (0.05 to 0.14)†‡11.94Mixed1174-8649130.19 (0.05 to 0.32)§¶29.80‡Age at adoption, mo0-1212455-16937200.09 (0.06 to 0.13)†‡26.79>12-24863-8203110.21 (0.04 to 0.37)&par;¶25.23‡>242472-5310160.16 (0.10 to 0.23)†‡8.17Age at assessment, y0-4208-66940.20 (0.02 to 0.38)‡¶1.07>4-121379-6510160.23 (0.16 to 0.30)†‡23.43>12-1813819-16382260.09 (0.05 to 0.12)†‡20.11>18384-688910.00 (−0.10 to 0.10)Time in family, y0-4337-94160.29 (0.03 to 0.54)†¶12.07&par;>4-8565-5831110.25 (0.17 to 0.34)†‡6.35>8-122452-2765130.18 (0.11 to 0.25)†‡9.88>1212436-20913170.05 (0.02 to 0.09)‡§8.96Control groupTotal No. in norm group14593-20146210.13 (0.07 to 0.20)†&par;42.45‡General population2928-17487140.16 (0.05 to 0.26)§&par;33.61‡Classmates327-30740.20 (0.05 to 0.36)‡¶3.01Unrelated siblings11338-235230.06 (0.01 to 0.10)‡¶0.31Norm group1197-10304260.18 (0.12 to 0.25)†‡14.49Country of studyNorth America626-1132120.23 (0.12 to 0.35)†‡16.08Other countries15164-29318350.10 (0.07 to 0.13)†‡42.70Publication outletJournal articles14852-16894290.16 (0.10 to 0.22)‡&par;52.04‡Reports, books938-13556180.11 (0.04 to 0.18)‡§11.42Externalizing ProblemsTotal Set14581-17363290.10 (0.07 to 0.13)†‡28.55Sample characteristicsPreadoption adversityNo12319-15237220.08 (0.04 to 0.12)†‡19.34Yes2262-212670.17 (0.10 to 0.24)†‡4.63SexMale5628-8489100.12 (0.07 to 0.17)†‡15.02Female8455-8045100.08 (0.03 to 0.13)‡§3.87Mixed498-82990.11 (−0.01 to 0.23)‡8.44Age at adoption, mo0-1212116-14170150.08 (0.04 to 0.12)†‡17.08>12-24217-107070.08 (−0.09 to 0.26)‡2.97>242248-212370.17 (0.09 to 0.24)†‡4.33Age at assessment, y0-4100-4830.24 (−0.14 to 0.63)‡0.21>4-12877-267980.17 (0.07 to 0.26)†‡8.41>12-1813604-14636180.09 (0.05 to 0.13)†‡17.02>18NANANANATime in family, y0-4100-4830.24 (−0.14 to 0.63)‡0.21>4-8247-231050.26 (0.13 to 0.39)†‡4.01>8-122182-98150.15 (0.08 to 0.23)†‡4.52>1212052-14024160.07 (0.02 to 0.11)†‡9.45DesignControl groupTotal No. in norm group13947-13013170.09 (0.05 to 0.13)†‡18.32General population2382-10438110.14 (0.07 to 0.21)†‡7.66Classmates227-22330.20 (0.01 to 0.39)‡¶4.26Unrelated siblings11338-235230.06 (0.02 to 0.11)‡§1.26Norm group634-4350120.17 (0.07 to 0.26)*†7.95Country of studyNorth America230-8170.13 (−0.16 to 0.42)‡2.10Other countries14351-17282220.10 (0.07 to 0.13)†‡26.42Publication outletJournal articles14392-15779230.10 (0.06 to 0.13)†‡27.72Reports, books189-1.58460.12 (−0.04 to 0.27)‡0.79Internalizing ProblemsTotal Set14596-18322300.07 (0.04 to 0.11)†‡22.55Sample characteristicsPreadoption adversityNo12334-16196230.07 (0.03 to 0.11)†‡18.57Yes2262-212670.09 (0.02 to 0.16)‡¶3.68SexMale5655-8921110.08 (0.03 to 0.13)†‡11.38Female8477-8622110.05 (0.00 to 0.10)‡¶2.35Mixed464-77980.13 (0.00 to 0.26)‡¶7.34Age at adoption, mo0-1212165-15179170.07 (0.03 to 0.11)†‡16.88>12-24183-102060.13 (−0.06 to 0.32)‡2.75>242248-212370.08 (0.01 to 0.15)‡¶2.47Age at assessment, y0-4100-4830.38 (0.00 to 0.76)‡0.34>4-12843-262970.12 (0.01 to 0.24)‡¶7.96>12-1813604-14636180.06 (0.03 to 0.10)†‡10.35>1849-100920.12 (−0.16 to 0.41)‡0.07Time in family, y0-4100-4830.38 (0.00 to 0.76)0.34>4-8247-231050.17 (0.04 to 0.31)‡¶6.75>8-122148-93140.09 (0.02 to 0.17)‡¶1.31>1212101-15033180.06 (0.02 to 0.10)‡§8.52DesignControl groupTotal No. in norm group13913-12963160.07 (0.03 to 0.10)†‡11.92General population2382-10438110.08 (0.01 to 0.14)‡¶6.96Classmates193-17320.25 (0.05 to 0.46)‡1.14Unrelated siblings11338-235230.05 (0.01 to 0.10)‡0.16Norm group683-5359140.12 (0.03 to 0.21)‡§9.33Country of studyNorth America230-8170.18 (−0.11 to 0.47)‡3.01Other countries14366-18241230.07 (0.04 to 0.11)†‡19.03Publication outletJournal articles14392-15779230.07 (0.04 to 0.11)†‡20.95Reports, books204-254370.11 (−0.03 to 0.26)‡1.29Abbreviation: NA, no studies were available.*The effect size and confidence intervals (CIs) are approximations.†P<.001.‡Fixed effects.§P<.01.&par;Random effects.¶P<.05.Compared with nonadopted controls, international adoptees showed more total behavior problems (d, 0.11; Figure 1). Combined effect size and CIs computed with the jackknife procedure remained the same. With the trim-and-fill procedure, a publication bias was found in this meta-analysis (Lo, 13), resulting in an adjusted effect of d, 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.09). The fail-safe number was k = 577. Compared with nonadopted controls, international adoptees presented more externalizing problems (d, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.07-0.13) in a homogeneous set of studies. The jackknife procedure yielded a similar point estimate and the same CIs. With the trim-and-fill procedure, 3 studies were trimmed and replaced (Lo, 3), resulting in an adjusted effect of 0.09 (95% CI, 0.05-0.12). The fail-safe number was k = 162. International adoptees presented more internalizing problems (d, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.11) in a homogeneous set of studies. The jackknife procedure produced the same combined effect size and CIs. No publication bias was found (Lo, 0), and the fail-safe number was k = 84. For behavior problems, all effect sizes were small.Figure 1.Meta-analysis of Total Behavior Problems in International AdopteesError bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs); f, female; m, male. Including 15 790 international adoptees and 30 450 nonadopted controls, international adoptees showed more total behavior problems (d, 0.11; P<.001; 95% CI, 0.08-0.14; k, 47) in a homogeneous set of studies (Q, 61.85; P=.06).Finally, international adoptees were overrepresented in mental health referrals (d, 0.37; Figure 2) and this effect size was medium. The jackknife procedure produced the same combined effect size and CIs. No publication bias was found (Lo, 0) and the fail-safe number was k = 195. The 7 studies in this meta-analysis reported on serious problems (Table 3): 4 studies found that international adoptees were more often receiving psychiatric treatmentin a clinicthan nonadopted children, and 3 studies found that international adoptees were placed out of the home into a residential settingor mental health facilitymore often than nonadopted controls.Figure 2.Meta-analysis of Mental Health Referrals in International AdopteesError bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Including 3073 international adoptees and 47 848 nonadopted controls, international adoptees were overrepresented in mental health referrals (d, 0.37; P<.001; 95% CI, 0.17-0.57; k= 7) in a heterogeneous set of studies (Q, 42.53; P<.001).International vs Domestic AdopteesWe examined whether international adoptees are at higher risk for behavior problems and clinical referrals than domestic adoptees (Table 4). As several subsets of studies in this meta-analysis were heterogeneous, we present the 85% CIs to test the significance of moderators. No publication bias was present in the meta-analyses of international adoptees vs domestic adoptees (Lo= 0 for total behavior problems [fail-safe, k= 2268], for externalizing [fail-safe, k= 1745], and for internalizing problems [fail-safe, k= 1768]). Preliminary analyses showed no differences for sex and age at adoptive placement; therefore, all analyses were conducted without these covariates. However, the sets of international and domestic adoption studies differed in the number of studies that reported evidence of extreme adversity before adoptive placement. Preadoption adversity was described more often in international adoption studies (18 of 21 studies of total behavior problems, 7 of 8 studies of externalizing and internalizing problems, and a single study of mental health referrals).Contrary to our expectations, we found that international adoptees showed significantly fewer total behavior problems compared with domestic adoptees, for the 85% CIs of the subsets were not overlapping (d, 0.11; 85% CI, 0.09-0.13 vs d, 0.20; 85% CI, 0.14-0.27, respectively; Table 4). Also, international adoptees showed significantly fewer externalizing problems than domestic adoptees (d, 0.10; 85% CI, 0.08-0.13 vs d, 0.34; 85% CI, 0.26-0.42, respectively) and also significantly fewer internalizing problems (d, 0.07; 85% CI, 0.05-0.10 vs d, 0.23; 85% CI, 0.13-0.32, respectively).Because all international adoption studies were conducted after 1990, we repeated the same analyses including only the domestic adoption studies conducted after 1990. Again, international adoptees showed significantly fewer total behavior problems than domestic adoptees (d, 0.11; 85% CI, 0.09-0.13; k, 47 vs d, 0.22; 85% CI, 0.14-0.29; k, 40, respectively), fewer externalizing problems (d, 0.10; 85% CI, 0.08-0.13; k, 29 vs d, 0.30; 85% CI, 0.20-0.39; k, 25, respectively), and fewer internalizing problems (d, 0.07; 85% CI, 0.05-0.10; k, 30 vs d, 0.27; 85% CI, 0.16-0.37; k, 24, respectively).International adoptees were significantly less often referred to mental health services compared with domestic adoptees (d, 0.37; 85% CI, 0.22-0.52 vs d, 0.81; 85% CI, 0.67- 0.94; respectively; Table 4). However, the set of pertinent studies involving international adoptees in mental health referrals was small (k = 7). Because all international adoption studies were conducted after 1980, we repeated the same analysis including only the domestic adoption studies conducted after 1980. Again, international adoptees were significantly less often referred to mental health services than domestic adoptees (d, 0.37; 85% CI, 0.22-0.52; k, 7 vs d, 0.78; 85% CI, 0.57-1.00; k= 14; respectively).International AdoptionModerator Analyses.For behavior problems, we present fixed models with 95% CIs for the homogeneous set of studies involving international adoptees (Table 5); the Qstatistic was used to test contrasts. The set of international adoption studies for mental health referrals was too small (k = 7) to permit moderator analyses.Sample Characteristics.The following sample characteristics were tested: preadoption adversity, sex, age at adoptive placement, age at assessment, and length of time in the family (Table 5). In 6 out of 9 articles reporting preadoption adversity, children had been adopted from Romanian or Russian orphanages.International adoptees with preadoption adversity showed more total behavior problems than international adoptees without such backgrounds (d, 0.18 vs d, 0.09, respectively; Table 5; contrast: Q1 = 6.46; P= .01) and more externalizing problems (d, 0.17 vs d, 0.08; respectively; Q1= 4.58; P= .03). There was no difference in internalizing problem behavior between international adoptees with and without preadoption adversity (Q1= 0.30; P= .58).We found no significant differences between male and female international adoptees for total behavior problems (Q1= 1.30; P= .25), externalizing problems (Q1= 1.20; P= .27), or internalizing problems (Q1= 0.66; P=.41).For children adopted as infants (0-12 months) compared with children adopted after their first birthday, there were no differences for total behavior problems (Q1= 2.27; P= .13), externalizing problems (Q1= 3.44; P= .06), or internalizing problems (Q1= 0.23; P= .63; Table 5). Examining children adopted before or after 24 months resulted in similar, nonsignificant outcomes.As the category of adulthood (>18 years) consisted of only 1 to 2 studies (Table 5), we restricted the analyses of age at assessment to adolescence (12-18 years) vs early and middle childhood (0-12 years). Contrary to our expectations, we found that international adoptees presented fewer total behavior problems in adolescence compared with international adoptees in early and middle childhood (d, 0.09 vs d, 0.23; respectively; Q1= 13.89; P<.001). Externalizing problems did not differ for adolescence vs early and middle childhood (d, 0.09 vs d, 0.17; respectively; Q1= 2.76; P= .10), nor did internalizing problems (d, 0.06 vs d, 0.14; respectively; Q1= 2.04; P= .15).Children who had been with their adoptive family for more than 12 years showed fewer total behavior problems than children who had been with the family for less than 12 years (d, 0.05 vs d, 0.21; respectively; Q1= 24.07; P<.001) and fewer externalizing problems (d, 0.07 vs d, 0.18; respectively; Q1= 8.52; P= .003). For internalizing problems, the contrast was not significant (d, 0.06 vs d, 0.12; respectively; Q1= 2.82; P=.09).Design.Studies that made use of a norm group as a comparison group for the international adoptees did not differ from studies that used a general population sample, classmates, or siblings (Table 5). For total behavior problems, one of the subsets was heterogeneous (studies not using a norm group) so the 85% CIs were inspected to test for significance. Because the CIs were overlapping (norm group, d, 0.18; 85% CI, 0.14-0.23 vs no norm group, d, 0.13; 85% CI, 0.08-0.18), there was no difference between the 2 subsets. For externalizing and internalizing problems, the 2 subsets were homogeneous and these contrasts were tested with the Qstatistic. There was no significant difference between studies using norm groups or other control groups for externalizing problems (Q1= 2.28; P= .13) or internalizing problems (Q1= 1.30; P= .25).Country of study was a significant moderator (Table 5). Studies conducted in North America reported more total behavior problems for international adoptees than studies outside North America (d, 0.23 vs d, 0.10; respectively; Q1= 4.69; P= .03). Studies in and outside North America did not differ with respect to externalizing problems (Q1= 0.04; P= .85) or internalizing problems (Q1= 0.50; P= .48).Publication Outlet.We examined the 85% CIs as one of the subsets for total problems was heterogeneous. Confidence intervals of both subsets were overlapping: journal articles (d, 0.16; 85% CI, 0.11-0.20) did not differ from other outlets (d, 0.11; 85% CI; 0.06-0.16). The contrasts for externalizing problems (Q1= 0.04; P= .84) and internalizing problems (Q1= 0.31; P= .58) also showed that journal articles did not differ from other outlets.COMMENTAs expected from their less optimal start in life, international adoptees presented with more total, externalizing, and internalizing behavior problems than their nonadopted peers and are overrepresented in mental health services. However, the rate of behavior problems is modest, indicating that most international adoptees are well-adjusted. These findings converge with those of a large Swedish cohort studythat found that the majority of international adoptees are well-adjusted and with those of other studies of international adoptees in the socioemotionaland cognitive domains.These positive outcomes may be partly explained by the characteristics of the families adopting children from abroad. These adoptive parents are highly motivated to raise children and they usually have ample opportunities to invest in their children’s development because of their relatively high socioeconomic status.International adoptees, however, experience substantially more mental health referrals, pointing to a relatively large minority of international adoptees seeking clinical treatment. The threshold to seek professional help, however, might be lower for adoptive parents than for birth parentsbecause of the adoptive parents’ higher socioeconomic status or their expectations of the adopted child.Having adopted, they are familiar with mental health resources and how to get services.Furthermore, schools may be more aware of the child’s adoptive status and more likely to recommend referral or to report behavior problems. Also, normative crises in adopted children, eg, coming to terms with the loss of their birth family,may be misperceived as behavior problems. Finally, a positive explanation of our outcomes may be that the higher referral rate did in fact prevent higher rates of behavior problems, resulting in the small effect sizes for problem behavior.In contrast to popular beliefs and hypotheses expressed in empirical studies,international adoptions show better behavioral and mental health outcomes than domestic adoptions. Our findings indicate that this is not explained by lower rates of preadoption adversity experienced by the international adoptees compared with domestic adoptees, as evidence of pre-adoption malnutrition, neglect, or abuse was reported more often in the international adoption studies. It is possible that in many transracial international adoptions, physical differences between parents and children are so obvious that the fact of the adoption was never a secret, resulting in more communication and trust in the family. Families choosing international (transracial) adoption may have different parenting qualities compared with parents in more traditional adoptions. No systematic information about parenting abilities is available in our data set. However, in most countries parents undergo a screening procedure to assess their potential fitness for parenting and receive (some) preparation. Finally, genetic risks may differ between international and domestic adoption. Whereas children in international adoption are often adopted because of lack of resources and poverty,relinquishment in domestic adoption may (also) involve mental health problems in the birth parent,such as substance abuse or psychiatric disorders. Although reasons for relinquishment may overlap, genetic risks predisposing for mental health problems may be less prevalent in international adoptees.The relatively positive outcomes of international adoption do not imply that international adoption should be preferred to domestic adoption in the sending countries. In our meta-analyses, domestic adoptions in developing countries could not be included due to the lack of empirical studies.Our meta-analytic outcomes confirm the hypothesized greater risk for internationally adopted children with backgrounds of extreme deprivation, neglect, malnutrition, or abuse. Clinicians and mental health professionals should be aware of this risk and support adoptive parents with preventive or therapeutic help.In contrast to some evidence,internationally adopted males do not present more behavior problems than internationally adopted females. Furthermore, we did not find convincing evidence that age at adoptive placement is a decisive factor for international adoptees’ behavior problems. Contrary to previous research,we found that international adoptees showed fewer total behavior problems in adolescence compared with international adoptees in early and middle childhood. Although it might be true in general that adoptees are questioning their identity more intensively in adolescence,international adoptees may begin struggling with identity issues much earlier because racial and cultural differences between adoptive parents and adoptees are more obvious than in domestic adoption. Some behavior problems in adoptees may occur on a different time schedule than in nonadopted children. For example, identity issues may surface earlier in adoptees than in their nonadopted peers. Therefore, mental health professionals should be aware of increased rates of behavior problems in families with international adoptees during the years before adolescence. We also found that children who had been with the adoptive family for more than 12 years showed fewer total and externalizing behavior problems than children who had been in the family for less than 12 years. This may indicate that a longer stay in the adoptive family offers children opportunities to recover from their problem behavior. Finally, we found more total behavior problems in studies conducted in North America. On the basis of our data base, we are unable to suggest explanations for this finding. Future research should examine this issue.Limitations of our series of meta-analyses are, first, the small number of studies of international adoptees with mental health referrals. More studies are needed to consolidate these findings. However, the meta-analytic findings on the behavioral outcomes of international adoptees converge with the mental health referral findings. The small number of studies on mental health referrals of international adoptees also precluded moderator analyses. A second limitation is that our definitions of international and domestic adoption and preadoption adversity may have introduced bias, as in some domestic adoption studies a minority of international adoptees were included and in samples without adversity some adoptees may have been neglected or abused. However, if such bias had been present, it would have resulted in an underestimation of our effects. Based on the positive outcomes for international adoptees and the negative outcomes for preadoption adversity, even larger differences in favor of international adoptees without preadoption adversity may be expected in totally unbiased samples. A third limitation is that we used only the first assessment of longitudinal adoption studies, possibly resulting in a bias toward fewer behavior problems. However, we know of only 1 studyfor which this would apply, restricting the possibility of such a bias to a minimum. A fourth limitation is that our findings may not generalize to the large group of Chinese children adopted in the United States, Canada, and Europe in recent years because their development has not been studied well yet (with one exception). A fifth limitation is that we were unable to compare the international adoptees and nonadopted controls on demographic background variables although in most studies it was reported that adoptive parents were somewhat older and more highly educated than the parents of the controls.It is unknown how the demographics would affect the outcomes of our meta-analysis. A final limitation is that we only included studies with nonadopted control groups, thus excluding articles comparing international adoptees with other comparison groups, such as children in foster care or children remaining in institutions. In a meta-analysis of adopted children’s cognitive development, we found that adopted children outperformed their peers and siblings who remained in the children’s home or birth family.In the current meta-analysis, such a comparison was not possible because there were no studies available addressing this issue. For future studies, it is important to compare internationally adopted children not only with nonadopted controls but also with these other relevant groups.In sum, our series of meta-analyses showed that the majority of international adoptees are well-adjusted although more adoptees are referred to mental health services compared with nonadopted controls. Contrary to common opinion, international adoptees present fewer behavior problems than domestic adoptees, and they have lower rates of mental health referral. Unexpectedly, age at adoption does not appear to be important for the development of behavioral problems. International adoptees with backgrounds of extreme adversity are at risk for more behavior problems, in particular externalizing problems, compared with international adoptees without preadoption adversity. Clinicians should be aware of higher risks for problem behaviors in domestic adoptees and in international adoptees who experienced neglect or maltreatment in the preadoptive period.Corresponding Author:Femmie Juffer, PhD, Centre for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, NL-2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands (juffer@fsw.leidenuniv.nl).Author Contributions:Drs Juffer and van IJzendoorn had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.Study concept and design: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Acquisition of data: Juffer.Analysis and interpretation of data: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Drafting of the manuscript: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Statistical analysis: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Obtained funding: Juffer, van IJzendoorn.Financial Disclosures:None reported.Funding/Support:The Adoption Meta-Analysis Project (ADOPTION MAP) is supported by grants from Stichting VSBfonds, Stichting Fonds 1818, Nationaal Fonds Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, and Stichting Kinderpostzegels in cooperation with the Adoptie Driehoek Onderzoeks Centrum. Dr van IJzendoorn is suppported by the NWO/Spinoza prize of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.Role of the Sponsors:The study sponsors had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in the writing of the report.Acknowledgment:We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Caroline W. Klein Poelhuis and Angy Wong.REFERENCESPSelmanIntercountry adoption in the new millennium; the “quiet migration” revisited.Popul Res Policy Rev200221205225PSelmanThe demographic history of intercountry adoption.In: Selman P, ed. Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives. London, England: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 2000WDuncanThe Hague Convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption.In: Selman P, ed. Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives.London, England: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 2000Immigrant visas issued to orphans coming to the U.S.US State Department Web site. Available at: http://www.travel.state.gov/family/adoption/stats/stats_451.html. Accessed April 3, 2005MRGunnarJBruceHDGrotevantInternational adoption of institutionally reared children: research and policy.Dev Psychopathol20001267769311202039TGO’ConnorMRutterCBeckettLKeaveneyJMKreppnerThe effects of global severe privation on cognitive competence: extension and longitudinal follow-up.Child Dev20007137639010834471FCVerhulstMAlthausHJVersluis-den BiemanProblem behavior in international adoptees, I: an epidemiological study.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry199029941032295584HFHarlowThe nature of love.Am Psychol195813673685CMirescuJDPetersEGouldEarly life experience alters response of adult neurogenesis to stress.Nat Neurosci2004784184615273691PVorriaZPapaligouraJDunnEarly experiences and attachment relationships of Greek infants raised in residential group care.J Child Psychol Psychiatry2003441208122014626461DMBrodzinskyA stress and coping model of adoption adjustment.In: Brodzinsky DM, Schechter MD, eds. The Psychology of Adoption.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1990BTizardIntercountry adoption: a review of the evidence.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1991327437561918225JPalaciosYSanchezNinos adoptados y no adoptados: un estudio comparativo.Anuario de Psicologia1996716385MHVan IJzendoornFJufferCWKleinAdoption and cognitive development: a meta-analytic comparison of adopted and non-adopted children’s IQ and school performance.Psychol Bull200513130131615740423MRutterEnglish and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study TeamDevelopmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1998394654769599775MWierzbickiPsychological adjustment of adoptees: a meta-analysis.J Clin Child Psychol199322447454GJStamsFJufferJRispensRAHoksbergenThe development and adjustment of 7-year-old children adopted in infancy.J Child Psychol Psychiatry2000411025103711099119AHjernFLindbladBVinnerljungSuicide, psychiatric illness, and social maladjustment in intercountry adoptees in Sweden: a cohort study.Lancet200236044344812241716NBimmelFJufferMHVan IJzendoornMJBakermans-KranenburgProblem behavior of internationally adopted adolescents: a review and meta-analysis.Harv Rev Psychiatry200311647712868507SACermakLADaunhauerSensory processing in the postinstitutionalized child.Am J Occup Ther1997515005079242855LFisherEWAmesKChisholmLSavoieProblems reported by parents of Romanian orphans adopted to British Columbia.Int J Behav Dev1997206782MCederbladBHoeoekMIrhammarAMMerckeMental health in international adoptees as teenagers and young adults: an epidemiological study.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1999401239124810604402ADamodaranNMehtaChild adoption in India: an overview.In: Selman P, ed. Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives.London: England: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 2000DFStroupJABerlinSCMortonMeta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) groupMeta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.JAMA20002832008201210789670BMullenAdvanced Basic Meta-analysis.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1989TMAchenbachManual for the Child Behavior Checklist 4-18.Burlington: University of Vermont, Dept of Psychiatry; 1991RLoebsteinGKorenPregnancy outcome and neurodevelopment of children exposed in utero to psychoactive drugs: the Motherisk experience.J Psychiatry Neurosci1997221921969183118VGrozeA 1 and 2 year follow-up study of adoptive families and special needs children.Child Youth Serv Rev1996185782DMoherBPhamAJonesDoes quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Lancet19983526096139746022KFSchulzIChalmersRJHayesDGAltmanEmpirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.JAMA19952734084127823387FCVerhulstJVan der Ende“Comorbidity” in an epidemiological sample: a longitudinal perspective.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1993347677838340444JCohenStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences.rev ed. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1988MBorensteinDRothsteinJCohenComprehensive Meta-analysis: A Computer Program for Research Synthesis.Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2000RRosenthalWriting meta-analytic reviews.Psychol Bull1995118183192HGoldsteinMJRHealyThe graphical presentation of a collection of means.J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc1995158175177FRHampelEMRonchettiPJRousseeuwWAStahelRobust Statistics: The Approach Based on Influence Functions.New York, NY: Wiley; 1986SDuvalRTweedieA nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis.J Am Stat Assoc2000958998AJSuttonSJDuvalRLTweedieKRAbramsDRJonesEmpirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses.BMJ20003201574157710845965SMGilbodyFJSongAJEastwoodASuttonThe causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry.Acta Psychiatr Scand200010224124911089723ILAndresenBehavioral and school adjustment of 12-13 year old internationally adopted children in Norway: a research note.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1992334274391564084CBagleyAdoption of native children in Canada: a policy analysis and a research report.In: Altstein H, Simon RJ, eds. Intercountry Adoption: A Multinational Perspective. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers; 1991:55-79RPBarthMBerryAdoption and Disruption: Rates, Risks, and Responses.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter; 1988PBensonASharmaECRoehlkepartainGrowing Up Adopted: A Portrait of Adolescents and Their Families.Minneapolis, Minn: Search Institute; 1994KBerg-KellyJErikssonAdaptation of adopted foreign children at mid-adolescence as indicated by aspects of health and risk taking: a population study.Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry199761992069442998SBogaertsGvan AelstAdolescentie en interculturele adoptie: psycho-sociale integratie in Vlaamse gezinnen.Leuven, Belgium: Garant; 1998MBohmanAdopted Children and Their Families: A Follow-up Study of Adopted Children, Their Background, Environment and Adjustment.Stockholm, Sweden: Propius; 1970LDBordersLKBlackBKPasleyAre adopted children and their parents at greater risk for negative outcomes?Fam Relat199847237241LDBordersJMPennyFPortnoyAdult adoptees and their friends: current functioning and psychosocial well-being.Fam Relat200049407418PKBotvarA Second Chance: International Adoptees in Norway.Diaconia, Norway: Diaconia College Centre; 1994AEBrandPMBrinichBehavior problems and mental health contacts in adopted, foster, and nonadopted children.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1999401221122910604400DMBrodzinskyDESchechterAMBraffLMSingerPsychological and academic adjustment in adopted children.J Consult Clin Psychol1984525825906470284DBrodzinskyJCHittDSmithImpact of parental separation and divorce on adopted and nonadopted children.Am J Orthopsychiatry1993634514618372912WBCareyWLLiptonRAMyersTemperament in adopted and foster babies.Child Welfare1974533523594833628JCastleCBeckettCGroothuesSTEraInfant adoption in England: a longitudinal account of social and cognitive progress.Adopt Fostering2000242635NJCohenJCoyneJDuvallAdopted and biological children in the clinic: Family, parental and child characteristics.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1993345455628509494RCookIVatevZMichovaSGolombokThe European study of assisted reproduction families: a comparison of family functioning and child development between Eastern and Western Europe.J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol1997182032129304541MDalenSchool performance among internationally adopted children in Norway.Adopt Q200153958KDeater-DeckardRPlominAn adoption study of etiology of teacher and parent reports of externalizing behavior problems in middle childhood.Child Dev19997014415410191519DKDe JongThe Well-being of Russian and Romanian Intercountry Adoptees in New Zealand.Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University; 2001ADumaretIQ. scholastic performance and behaviour of sibs raised in contrasting environments.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1985265535804019617XFanBCMillerMChristensenQuestionnaire and interview inconsistencies exaggerated differences between adopted and non-adopted adolescents in a national sample.Adopt Q20026727WFeigelmanAdopted adults: comparisons with persons raised in conventional families.Marriage Fam Rev199725199223DMFergussonMLynskeyLJHorwoodThe adolescent outcomes of adoption: a 16-year longitudinal study.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1995365976157650085ROFischMKBilekASDeinardPNChangGrowth, behavioral, and psychologic measurements of adopted children: the influences of genetic and socioeconomic factors in a prospective study.J Pediatr197689494500956980NForsten-LindmanForeign Born Children's Socioemotional Adjustment to Finland: Intercountry Adoptees and Vietnamese Refugees.Abo, Finland: Abo University; 1993DBGardnerGRHawkesLGBurchinalNoncontinuous mothering in infancy and development in later childhood.Child Dev19613222523413703601HGeerarsRACHoksbergenJRoodaGeadopteerden op weg naar volwassenheid: De integratie van 68 Thaise jongeren in de Nederlandse samenleving.Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 1995RDGoldneyMDonaldMGSawyerRJKoskyEmotional health of Indonesian adoptees living in Australian families.Aust N Z J Psychiatry1996305345398887706SGolombokFMacCallumEGoodmanThe “test-tube” generation: parent-child relationships and the psychological well-being of in vitro fertilization children at adolescence.Child Dev20017259960811333087JHodgesBTizardIQ and behavioural adjustment of ex-institutional adolescents.J Child Psychol Psychiatry19893053752925821RACHoksbergenFStoutjesdijkKRijkCvan DijkumAdoptie van Roemeense kinderen in Nederland.Pedagogiek2002225569JLHoopesEAShermanEALawderRGAndrewsKDLowerA Follow-up Study of Adoptions (Vol. II): Post-Placement Functioning of Adopted Children.New York, NY: Child Welfare League of America; 1970JLHoopesLBAlexanderPSilverGOberNKirbyFormal adoption of the developmentally vulnerable African-American child: ten-year outcomes.Marriage Fam Rev199725131144JAHowardSLSmithSDRyanA comparative study of child welfare adoptions with other types of adopted children and birth children.Adopt Q20047130SJudgeDeterminants of parental stress in families adopting children from Eastern Europe.Fam Relat200352241248WJKimYJShinMPCareyComparison of Korean-American adoptees and biological children of their adoptive parents: a pilot study.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev19992922122810080964JELansfordRCeballoAAbbeyAJStewartDoes family structure matter? a comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households.J Marriage Fam200163840851RLevy-ShiffPsychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: family environment and adoption-related correlates.Int J Behav Dev20012597104BWLindholmJTouliatosPsychological adjustment of adopted and nonadopted children.Psychol Rep1980463073107367547ELLipmanDROffordYARacineMHBoylePsychiatric disorders in adopted children: a profile from the Ontario Child Health Study.Can J Psychiatry1992376276331477821JLoganPMEMorallHChambersIdentification of risk factors for psychological disturbance in adopted children.Child Abuse Rev19987154164SMarcovitchSGoldbergAGoldJWashingtonDeterminants of behavioural problems in Romanian children adopted in Ontario.Int J Behav Dev1997201731BMaughanSCollishawAPicklesSchool achievement and adult qualifications among adoptees: a longitudinal study.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1998396696859690931EEPinderhughesShort-term placement outcomes for children adopted after age five.Child Youth Serv Rev199820223249BPrielSMelamed-HassABesserBKantorAdjustment among adopted children: the role of maternal self-reflectiveness.Fam Relat200049389396JWRojewskiMSShapiroMShapiroParental assessment of behavior in Chinese adoptees during early childhood.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev200031799611033930TRosenwaldIntercountry adoptive families in Western Australia: the well-being of their four to sixteen year-old adoptees.Joondalup, Western Australia: Cowan University; 1994ARSharmaMKMcGuePLBensonThe emotional and behavioral adjustment of United States adopted adolescents, I: an overview.Child Youth Serv Rev19961883100ARSharmaMKMcGuePLBensonThe psychological adjustment of United States adopted adolescents and their nonadopted siblings.Child Dev1998697918029680685LMSingerDMBrodzinskyDRamsayMSteirEWatersMother-infant attachment in adoptive families.Child Dev198556154315514075872MASmyerMGatzNLSimiNLPedersenChildhood adoption: long-term effects in adulthood.Psychiatry1998611912059823029HEStorsbergenPsychische gezondheid en welbevinden van volwassen Grieks geadopteerden in Nederland: de invloed van het geadopteerd zijn.Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2004PFSullivanJEWellsJABushnellAdoption as a risk factor for mental disorders.Acta Psychiatr Scand1995921191247572257HTsitsikasCCoulacoglouPMitsotakisADrivaA follow-up study of adopted children.In: Hibbs ED, et al, eds. Children and Families: Studies in Prevention and Intervention. Madison, Conn: International Universities Press; 1988:399-414SBWarrenLower threshold for referral for psychiatric treatment for adopted adolescents.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry1992315125171592785HWitmerEHerzogEAWeinsteinMESullivanIndependent Adoptions: A Follow-up Study.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1963EFBorgattaDFanshelBehavioral Characteristics of Children Known to Psychiatric Outpatient Clinics.New York, NY: Child Welfare League of America; 1965PMBrinichEBBrinichAdoption and adaptation.J Nerv Ment Dis19821704894937097266MCederblad“Hög” ålder vid adoption—största risken för att utveckla anpassningsproblem I tonåren.Lakartidningen199188108110852016941IDéry-AlfredssonMKatzUtländska adoptivbarn på PBU.Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University; 1986CKDeutschOverrepresentation of adoptees in children with the attention deficit disorder.Behav Genet1982122312387126106LRDicksonWMHeffronCParkerChildren from disrupted and adoptive homes on an inpatient unit.Am J Orthopsychiatry1990605946022248370BTEidusonJBLivermoreComplications in therapy with adopted children.Am J Orthopsychiatry195323795802DGoldbergSNWolkindPatterns of psychiatric disorder in adopted girls: a research note.J Child Psychol Psychiatry1992339359401634596JDGoodmanRMSilbersteinWMandellAdopted children brought to child psychiatric clinic.Arch Gen Psychiatry19639451456JDGoodmanNRMagnoAdoption and its influence during adolescence: a comparison of court and community-referred psychiatric patients.J Med Soc N J1975729229281058982RACHoksbergenGCMBakker-van ZeilAdoptiefkinderen bij Medisch Opvoedkundige Bureaus (MOB) en Jeugd Psychiatrische Diensten (JPD).In: Hoksbergen RAC, Walenkamp H, eds. Adoptie uit de Kinderschoenen.Deventer, the Netherlands: Van Loghum Slaterus; 1983:223-42RACHoksbergenJJTMSpaanBCWaardenburgBittere ervaringen: uithuisplaatsingen van buitenlandse adoptiekinderen.Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1988NLHoldenAdoption and eating disorders: a high-risk group?Br J Psychiatry19911588298331873634PHolmanSome factors in the aetiology of maladjustment in children: a comparison of 100 children “ascertained” as in need of special educational treatment and 100 others referred to a child guidance clinic.J Ment Science195399654688MHumphreyCOunstedAdoptive families referred for psychiatric advice, I: the children.Br J Psychiatry196310959960814054197GKJamesonPsychiatric disorder in adopted children in Texas.Tex Med19676383886044221LJeromeOverrepresentation of adopted children attending a children's mental health centre.Can J Psychiatry1986315265313756755JJungmannAdoption unter Vorbehalt? zur psychischen Problematik von Adoptivkindern.Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr1980292252307454676TKennyRBaldwinJBMackieIncidence of minimal brain injury in adopted children.Child Welfare1967462429BKKetchumReports on study of adopted children.Child Welfare196443249SKotsopoulosACoteLJosephNPentlandPsychiatric disorders in adopted children: a controlled study.Am J Orthopsychiatry1988586086123265858HLPiersmaAdopted children and inpatient psychiatric treatment: a retrospective study.Psychiatr Hosp198718153158MLKPringleThe incidence of some supposedly adverse family conditions and of left-handedness in schools for maladjusted children.Br J Educ Psychol196131183193SAReeceBLevinPsychiatric disturbances in adopted children: a descriptive study.Soc Work196813101111GARogenessSKHoppeCAMacedoCFischerPsychopathology in hospitalized, adopted children.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry1988276286313182629MDSchechterObservations on adopted children.Arch Gen Psychiatry19603213214442505NSeniorEHimadiEmotionally disturbed, adopted, inpatient adolescents.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev1985151891974028879NMSimonAGSenturiaAdoption and psychiatric illness.Am J Psychiatry19661228588685902496DMSweenyDTGasbarroMRGluckA descriptive study of adopted children seen in a child guidance center.Child Welfare196342345349PWToussiengThoughts regarding the ethiology of psychological difficulties in adopted children.Child Welfare1962415965, 71PhDATreffersAWGoedhartEKoudijsPsychosociale clusters in de kinder-en jeugdpsychiatrie: kinderen in een afwijkende gezinssituatie.Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid19981111031119FCVerhulstHJMVersluis-den-BiemanBuitenlandse Adoptiekinderen: Vaardigheden en Probleemgedrag.Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum; 1989KJZuckerSJBradleyAdoptee overrepresentation among clinic-referred boys with gender identity disorder.Can J Psychiatry199843104010439868571HJMVersluis-den BiemanFCVerhulstSelf-reported and parent reported problems in adolescent international adoptees.J Child Psychol Psychiatry199536141114288988275

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: May 25, 2005

There are no references for this article.