Zeitschrift für Psychologie / JournalT.

of Macha & F.
Psychology
© 2008 Petermann:
Hogrefe
2008; Vol. The
& Huber ET 6–6
216(3):154–160
Publishers

The ET 6–6
A Method for Developmental Assessment
for German-Speaking Countries
Thorsten Macha and Franz Petermann
Center for Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation, University of Bremen, Germany

Abstract. The ET 6–6 presents a procedure for the assessment of a developmental status in children from 6 months to 6 years of age
that uses experimentally based test tasks for a great variety of developmental skills. The results are shown in a multidimensional and
age-specific profile. The instrument has been standardized by testing 950 children.

Keywords: developmental test, developmental assessment, child development

Preventive medical check-ups for children that rely on med-
ical examination, short conversation with parents, and some
behavior monitoring may not be sufficient to detect or ex-
clude the presence of a developmental disorder. The ET 6–6
(Developmental Test 6 Months to 6 Years; Petermann, Stein,
& Macha, 2006a) provides a standardized test procedure suit-
able for a large age range that allows for norm-oriented as-
sessment based on a new model of development.
Theoretical Considerations
The development of the ET 6–6 was based on suggestions
by pediatricians as well as results from research in devel-
opmental neurology and neuropsychology. This resulted in
a multiperspective view:
– Age: Is a skill profile of a child typical for a particular
developmental period?
– Disorder: Do signs and symptoms relate to specific cat-
egories of developmental deviations?
– Course: Can valid predictions of future development be
derived from the instrument’s scoring pattern?
The ET 6–6 is based on theories of maturation (Plomin et al.,
1993; Scarr, 1992) as well as on learning theory, Piaget’s
theory of cognitive development, and Bronfenbrenner’s eco-
logical theory (2006). Other concepts considered include sen-
sitive phases, risk and protective factors, developmental
tasks, or milestones. A core characteristic of the ET 6–6 is the
concept of development as complex interaction instead of
linear progression. Sroufe (1997), for example, suggests a
tree-like structure of developmental pathways (patterns), fea-
turing increased differentiation with increasing age, and dif-
ferent normal and abnormal trajectories in different develop-
mental areas. Touwen (1984; see Michaelis & Niemann,
2004) argues that a large amount of interindividual and intra-
individual variability is characteristic even for normal child
development. Low-contact pathways, then, describe basic
abilities that may expedite or inhibit the development of
skills. A large number of such developmental pathways are
supposed to interact in a complex manner such that they can-
not be observed by standard psychometric testing. Conse-
quently, it is the interaction that forms an observable skill pattern
and that needs to be monitored by a developmental test.
The individual developmental process is modeled by a
circumscribed developmental cone (see Figure 1). The status
at a particular time (e.g., T) can be obtained by considering
the appropriate section of the cone. At time 0, individual de-
velopment begins. At the time of birth (B), the individual
developmental process has already differentiated progres-
sively, which is illustrated by the increased expansion of the
conic section. For example, at times t1 and t2, the differentia-
tion of the developmental paths are illustrated by P1 and P2.
They attain stability after a certain time interval. By interac-
tion of different developmental paths in the individual’s bio-
psychosocial context, specific skills are developed at time t3.
Such skills are accessible to assessment and can be measured
by items of the ET 6–6. With the continuous influence of
developmental paths, these skills are further differentiated
and lead to complex skills (C). The complex skills are known
as context bound behavioral dispositions and frequently give
the impression of an abnormal development.
Methodic Implementation and
Structure of the Test
For normal development and specific types of disorders,
Petermann, Stein, and Macha (2006b) analyze configura-

Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
DOI 10.1027/0044-3409.216.3.154
 T. Macha & F. Petermann: The ET 6–6 155

tions of age-specific and age-typical developmental paths,

Figure 1. A systematic diagram for developmental process-
es (see Petermann, Stein, & Macha, 2006b) 0 = beginning
of development; b = Birth; t1, t2, t3, t4, T = periods in the
developmental process; P1, P2 = developmental paths; S =
skills; C = complex skills.
basic skills, and complex skills. Quantifiable developmen-
tal deviations can however arise from minute causes like
disturbances in the development of one of the developmen-
tal paths. The ET 6–6 shows these typical configurations
using the empirically based constellation of items. In addi-
tion descriptive dimensions based on historically devel-
oped, evident classification categories are used. A multi-
plicity of age-relevant and different qualitative develop-
mental aspects will be considered within each dimension.
This heterogeneity of the dimensions ensures an inventory
of complex developmental processes. The areas of mea-
surement are then represented by 10 empirical develop-
mental dimensions (see Table 1). Starting from the middle
of the 4th year, an additional descriptive category is intro-
duced: the subtest drawing. The content of the develop-
mental dimension is different for each age-group. While
some dimensions are tested globally during early infancy,
the precise developmental status can be indicated through
differentiated assessment of motor skills. For older chil-
dren, age-appropriate differentiated tasks for the cognitive
and emotional development, as well as language and social
development, are necessary. The grouping of items within
each age-group (see below) of the ET 6–6 was not used to
develop subtests with scales over a wide age range. There-
fore, quantitative progress in specific ranges can be record-
ed exactly. However, such procedures frequently lead to the
neglect of qualitative aspects. Very reliable methods whose
validity appears questionable are often used. The ET 6–6
concentrates on the collection of multiple, age-specific,

Table 1. Dimensions of the ET 6–6

Descriptive Empirical developmental Represented complex abilities
dimensions dimensions
Gross motor skills – Gross motor skills (GMS) Head and body control, development of locomotion, progressive differentiation and inte-
gration of basal elements of body control by acquiring typical daily and game skills e.g.,
climbing stairs, jumping, balancing, catching, using a tricycle or bicycle.
Fine motor skills – Fine motor skills (FMS) Targeted grasping and releasing, manipulation and use of objects, improvement in han-
dling a pen, implied aspects of visuomotor activities (frequent evaluation in relation to
Subtest Drawing is meaningful).
Cognitive – Memory (M) Different aspects of the memory (visual as well as phonetic recognition, visual and phonet-
development – Action strategies (Strat) ic reproduction); perception control, object permanence, understanding of causation, spa-
– Categorization (Cat) tial perspective consideration, action planning, formation of categories, differentiation and
– Body awareness (BA) specification within and between categories, consideration of many categories, class inclu-
sion, aspect of conception about knowledge of and orientation to one’s body and the body
of others.
Language – receptive language (RL) Different aspects of sound, word and sentence production; understanding of words and
development – expressive language (EL) sentences.
Social development – Social development (Soc) Start and organization of relationships with important related people and peers as well as
within groups according to age; signs of temporary and accompanying symptoms of be-
havior disorder.
Emotional – Emotional development Emotion regulation, exploration behaviors, behavior in specific daily life situations (meet-
development (Emo) ing, separation, annoyance); qualities of children’s games.
Additionally from 3;6 mon.: Apart from hand motor talents, aspects of visual perception, spatial-constructive abilities
Subtest Drawing (SD) as well as additional aspects of perception organization (“integrated comprehension,” “as-
pect of form”) are collected and particularly indicate specific neurological/fine neurologi-
cal impairments.

© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160
156 T. Macha & F. Petermann: The ET 6–6
Figure 2. Duration of administration (average values) of
the ET 6–6 in the age groups.
Note: The values on the category axis mark the respective
upper limits of an age group (“9” describes the age range
from 6 to 9 months). The age group “at least 6 months” (6)
is not a part of the age range of the ET 6–6, but supplies an
additional reference for the age group “at least 9 months.”
and relevant qualitative characteristics within the individ-
ual developmental status (Macha & Petermann, 2006).
The ET 6–6 provides a development assessment for a
wide age spectrum. From the extensive item pool (113 test
items, 67 items for parent questionnaires), an age-specific
item selection for carrying out the test is conducted. For
this, the entire age span is classified into 12 groups; the
respective age ranges are presented in Figure 2. Prelimi-
nary studies on ET 6–6 were performed with a constructive
sample of 260 children from Bremen, Germany. The stan-
dardization was conducted with 950 children from three
regions (Bremen, Dortmund, Rostock; all in Germany).
The construction of the ET 6–6 allows practitioners to
conduct a time-effective assessment. As shown in Figure
2, the average administration time for the individual age
groups ranges from about 12 minutes (babies) to about 50
minutes for ages 3 years and above.
Administration and Scoring
The ET 6–6 is administered while playing with the child.
Thus, a parent can be present during the test. The results
are documented using age-group-specific protocol and
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160
scoring questionnaires, each of which are based on gen-
eral knowledge from research on toddlers, infants and
preschoolers. Information about social and emotional de-
velopment is obtained with the help of a parent question-
naire that can be completed during testing. Following the
test, a structured sampling of possible conditions influ-
encing the testing process is conducted.
The scoring and interpretation of individual test pro-
files is very economical since a greater part of the respec-
tive age-group-specific standardization data is contained
in the protocol and scoring questionnaires. Hence, refer-
ring to the specific tables of the manual is only necessary
in a few cases. For the scoring of the subtest drawing,
scoring stencils are available. First, a developmental pro-
file of all dimensions collected in the respective age
group is produced. This permits an initial orientation con-
cerning the strengths and weaknesses of the individual
profile. The dimension-specific test values can be con-
verted into the assessment classes “unremarkable,” “risk
range,” and “serious deficit.”
An Example of a Developmental
Profile
Figure 3 shows the development profile of a 5.8-year-old
girl with global developmental deficits in the motor as well
as cognitive domains.
The motor performances (gross motor skills, GMS; fine
motor skills, FMS) lie far within the serious deficits range,
the cognitive performances (memory, M; strategies, Strat;
categorization, Cat; body Awareness, BA; expressive lan-
guage, EL) also lie in the range of serious deficits but partly
less clearly. The result of an additional intelligence test
showed mental retardation (IQ = 69). The subtest drawing
(SD) gave similar results, because the girl could not obtain
a score. Additionally, unremarkable test scores were ob-
tained from the parents’ information concerning social de-
velopment (Soc), while emotional development (Emo) was
slightly above the risk range.
Figure 3. The ET 6–6 profile of a girl
(68 months old) with the Kabuki-syn-
drome. Remarks: See Table 1 for an
explanation of the abbreviations on
the category axis; for each develop-
mental dimension, the average of the
test values of age groups (60–72
months) as well as their respective up-
ward and downward standard devia-
tions are shown as a corridor.
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 T. Macha & F. Petermann: The ET 6–6
Validation
In order to evaluate the validity of a developmental test, the
following topics need to be addressed empirically:
– Can children with developmental disorders or delays be
reliably identified?
– Can a developmental status in normal children be mod-
eled by means of a differentiated profile?
– Do quantitative scale characteristic derived from data
conform to theoretical assumptions?
– Will scores or scoring patterns allow for predictions?
The ET 6–6 consists of 12 age-specific subtests that, by
scale structure and item compilation, display a certain de-
gree of incommensurability. Therefore, validation must ac-
count for this heterogeneity: Do empirical results conform
to theoretical assumptions pertaining to the respective age
groups? During the past years, numerous studies have es-
tablished evidence that the ET 6–6 meets the requirements
quoted above (see Table 2).
Extreme Group Comparisons
Premature born infants are not a homogeneous clinical
group, but, on average, have developmental deficits when
compared to full term children (Schneider, Wolke, Schlag-
müller, & Meyer, 2004). A study by Macha, Proske, and
Petermann (2005) showed that underachievement as ex-
pected in premature infants can be identified using the ET
6–6. In a sample of N = 69 prematures, significant reduc-
tion in motor skill as well as cognitive abilities were found
even in 1-year-olds. Rapp, Thyen, Müller-Steinhardt, and
Kohl (2005) achieved similar results using a sample of N =
63 very-preterm children tested in preschool age. Here,
68.3% of subjects displayed deviations of more than 1
standard deviation (SD) unit from the age-corrected mean
score (profile center), and 38.1% of subjects scored even
more than 2 SD units below average. Hampel et al. (2007)
were able to show cognitive and socioemotional deficits in
prematures when testing 5- and 6-year-old children with
the ET 6–6 (N = 29).
Physical Disorder and Handicap
Hülser, Dubowny, Knobl, Meyer, and Schölmerich (2007)
tested motor function and cognitive abilities in children
with congenital heart disease (N = 44) as compared to
matched controls. Supposedly due to reduced performance
capacity and power of concentration, diseased children
scored significantly lower. Daseking, Lemcke, Macha, &
Petermann (2007) studied stroke children (N = 32), which
had significantly lower levels of achievement (again com-
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
157
pared to matched controls). They were able to attribute spe-
cific deficits to the location of etiologic brain lesion.
Behavioral Disorders
Deficits in cognition, social development, and emotional
development in children with behavior disorders (ADHS,
oppositional disorder; N = 54) were investigated by Gadow
(2003). Compared to controls matched for ethnicity, age
and gender, motor skills did not differ significantly from
normal level, but achievement in all cognitive areas as well
as the social and emotional domain did.
Criterion Validity
Various studies of criterion validity demonstrate that re-
sults of the ET 6–6 correspond to scores from other tests.
A pilot study by Petermann et al. (2006b) resulted in
moderate correlations between scores of the Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC, German ver-
sion; Melchers & Preuß, 2001) and the ET 6–6. These
findings are considered highly plausible because K-ABC
subtests are constructed as homogeneous scales and as-
sess isolated partial abilities, whereas the ET 6–6 pur-
posely compiles heterogeneous items into its dimensions.
Since the ET 6–6 model assumes high variability even in
normal children, statistical association cannot be expect-
ed. For children with cognitive deficits, however, the fol-
lowing can be stated:
– Children with reduced global cognitive ability in K-
ABC (2 SD below average in summative scores) display
pronounced cognitive retardation with the ET 6–6.
– Specific cognitive deficits are detected by both tests, al-
beit in a different manner. Inspection of patients profile
from the Psychological Ambulance of the Center for
Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation (University of
Bremen, Germany) indicate that children with deviation
of 2 SD below average in at least one K-ABC subtest
have regularly significant deviating patterns in ET 6–6
profile. Thus, the ET 6–6 can be considered as a screen-
ing instrument suitable for initial diagnosis.
A recent study by Goertz, Kolling, Frahsek, and Knopf
(2008; Goertz, Kolling, Frahsek, Stanisch, & Knopf, 2007;
Goertz, Knopf, Kolling, Frahsek, & Kressley, 2006; Kol-
ling, Goertz, Frahsek, & Knopf, 2007) demonstrated an as-
sociation of cognitive achievement as assessed by the ET
6–6 and nonverbal declarative memory in 2 year-old chil-
dren (N = 174). They found highly significant correlations
of achievement in the Frankfurter Imitationstests (FIT
12/FIT 18/FIT 24) and indicators of cognitive abilities in
the ET 6–6, especially action strategies. Thus, the ET 6–6
may be used to evaluate prospects for untroubled language
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160
158 T. Macha & F. Petermann: The ET 6–6

acquisition even in preverbal children. The German Lan- Table 2. Overview of validation studies of the ET 6–6
guage Development Test for 2 years olds (SETK-2; Grimm,
Studies Authors (year)
2000) as well as the German Language Development Test
for 3- to 5-year-olds (SETK 3–5; Grimm, 2001) also vali- Extreme group comparisons
date ET 6–6 indications of language disorders (Lissmann, – Premature infants Manual
Domsch, & Lohaus, 2006). Predictive validity of the ET – Premature infants Macha, Proske, & Petermann
6–6 has been demonstrated in a pilot study by Lissmann et (2005)
al. (2006) using the Bayley Scales (Bayley II; Bayley, – Premature infants Hampel, Kropf, Petermann, Kö-
1993) as a reference. nig, Gloger-Tippelt, & Dikici
(2007)
– Very premature infants Rapp, Thyen, Müller-Steinhardt,
& Kohl (2005)
Physical disorders
Longitudinal Studies
– Heart disease Hülser, Dubowny, Knobl,
Meyer, & Schölmerich (2007)
Petermann et al. (2006b) used a sample of N = 41 normal
– Perinatal stroke Daseking, Lemcke, Macha, & Pe-
children to demonstrate a high but regular fluctuation of ET termann (2007)
6–6 scores even within the normal range (1 SD unit
Behavioral disorders
above/below the average) in children from their 3rd to their
4th year. Lissmann et al. (2006) found similar variability in – Externalizing behavior disor- Gadow (2003)
ders
children assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months of age. Here,
significant test-retest correlations were obtained between Criterion validity
the ages 6 months and 12 months in the cognitive and emo- – Intelligence assessment (K- Manual
tional domain, whereas there was far less stability from 6 ABC)
to 24 months and 12 to 24 months of age (Lissmann, Korn- – Language (SETK-2; SETK Lissmann, Domsch, & Lohaus
theuer, & Lohaus, 2007). 3–5) (2006)
– Specific cognitive abilities Goertz, Knopf, Kolling, Frahsek,
& Kressley (2006)
Goertz, Kolling, Frahsek, &
Knopf (2008)
Practicability – Developmental assessment Lissmann, Domsch, & Lohaus
(BSID II) (2006)
Aspects of practicability and predictive validity of the ET Longitudinal studies
6–6 were investigated in a single-case study of a child with – Normal children (ages 2–3) Manual
severe developmental disorders (Heubrock, Spranger, Lex, – Normal infants (6–24 months) Lissmann, Domsch, & Lohaus
Lepach, & Petermann, 2003). Profound retardation is ex- (2006)
pected to produce substantial, and noticeable, deviation Lissmann, Korntheuer, & Lo-
from the normal range in a developmental profile from the haus (2007)
ET 6–6, on the premise that the child is challenged with the Practicability
tasks suitable for his or her actual age. Deliberately choos- – Practicability of verbal testing Macha, Daseking, Vogel, & Pe-
ing a test level for earlier ages, on the other hand, will pro- termann (2008)
vide differentiated information on actual competence in- – Practicability of motor testing Macha, Mayer, Petermann, Peter-
stead of deficits: information most valuable for indication mann, & Waldeck (2007)
of special training or therapy. – Extreme retardation Heubrock, Spranger, Lex, Le-
Results by Macha, Daseking, Vogel, and Petermann pach, & Petermann (2003)
(2008) suggest that language-oriented testing with the ET
6–6 might introduce bias in a developmental profile for
language-impaired children. Diagnosed children (ICD-10 Conclusion
F80.1 or F80.2, N = 26) of preschool age attained lower
profile scores (0.5 to 0.9 SD units) when tested with the ET Since 2000, the ET 6–6 has received widespread recogni-
6–6 than when tested with the completely nonverbal SON- tion and is increasingly used in German-speaking coun-
R (Janke & Petermann, 2006). Using a sample of children tries, in both practical health care settings and academic
with cerebral palsy (N = 23) Macha, Mayer, Petermann, research.
Petermann, and Waldeck (2007) point out the influence of In consideration of recent advances of child neuropsy-
motor skills on testing cognitive functions and argue that chology (Petermann & Lepach, 2007), the test will undergo
the ET 6–6 is suitable also for children with motor impair- extensive revision in near future, and will then, of course,
ment. be based on updated norms.

Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 T. Macha & F. Petermann: The ET 6–6
References
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.).
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2006). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Daseking, M., Lemcke, J., Macha, T., & Petermann, F. (2007).
Frühkindliche Schlaganfälle – Studie zur klinischen Validität
des ET 6–6 [Perinatal stroke – clinical validity of the ET 6–6].
Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychothe-
rapie, 35, 311–319.
Gadow, T. (2003). Die Bedeutung des sozial-kognitiven Lernens
für die Entwicklung externalisierenden Verhaltens. Eine bio-
psychosoziale Analyse [Effects of social-cognitive learning on
development of externalizing behavior problems. A biopsy-
chosocial analysis]. e-published dissertation, University of
Dortmund, Germany.
Goertz, C., Knopf, M., Kolling, T., Frahsek, S., & Kressley, R.
(2006). Der Frankfurter Imitations-Test für 12 Monate alte
Kinder. Erprobung einer Aufgabenserie zur Erfassung des de-
klarativen Gedächtnisses Einjähriger [The Frankfurt Imitation
Test for 12-Month-Old Infants. Testing a series of items for
measuring declarative memory in 1-year-olds]. Zeitschrift für
Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 38,
88–96.
Goertz, C., Kolling, T., Frahsek, S., Stanisch, A., & Knopf, M
(2007). Assessing declarative memory in 12-month-old in-
fants: A test-retest reliability study of the deferred imitation
task. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. Re-
trieved on April 29, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.
com/smpp/content~content=a778058220?words=goertz&hash
=2773344356
Goertz, C., Kolling, T., Frahsek, S., & Knopf, M. (2008, in press).
Die Frankfurter Imitationstests für 18 und 24 Monate alte Kin-
der: Entwicklung altersangepasster Gedächtnistests [The
Frankfurt Imitation Test for 18-month-olds and 24-month-
olds: The development of age-adequate memory tests]. Zeit-
schrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psy-
chologie, 40, in press.
Grimm, H. (2000). Sprachentwicklungstest für zweijährige Kin-
der (SETK-2) [Language development test for 2 years olds].
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Grimm, H. (2001). Sprachentwicklungstest für drei- bis fünfjäh-
rige Kinder (SETK 3–5) [Language development test for 3–5-
year-olds]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Hampel, P., Kropf, V., Dikici, S., König, L., Gloger-Tippelt, G.,
& Petermann, F. (2007). Kognitive Entwicklung und sozial-
emotionale Kompetenzen bei Frühgeborenen mit unterschied-
lichen Bindungsrepräsentationen [Cognitive development and
socio-emotional competencies in premature children with dif-
ferent attachment representations]. Kindheit und Entwicklung,
16, 220–228.
Heubrock, D., Spranger, S., Lex, B., Lepach, A.C., & Petermann,
F. (2003). Interstitial deletion on chromosome 5q33.3q35.1 in
a 6-year-old-girl. Neuropsychological findings and follow-up
in an extremely rare chromosomal aberration. Child Neuropsy-
chology, 9, 129–141.
Hülser, K., Dubowy, K.-O., Knobl, H., Meyer, H., & Schölmerich,
A. (2007). Developmental outcome and psychosocial adjust-
ment in children after surgery for congenital heart disease dur-
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160
159
ing infancy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,
25, 139–151.
Janke, N., & Petermann, F. (2006). Zur klinischen Aussagekraft
des SON-R 2½-7 [Applicability of the SON-R 2½-7 in a clin-
ical context]. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 15, 83–92.
Kolling, T., Goertz, C., Frahsek, S., & Knopf, M. (2007). Stability
of deferred imitation in 12- to 18-month-old infants: A closer
look into developmental dynamics. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology. Retrieved on April 29, 2008,
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788
456348?words=goertz&hash=2773344356
Lissmann, I., Domsch, H., & Lohaus, A. (2006). Zur Stabilität
und Validität von Entwicklungstestergebnissen im Alter von
sechs Monaten bis sechs Jahren. Eine Analyse am Beispiel des
ET 6–6 [Stability and validity of developmental test results for
infants aged 6 months to 2 years: An empirical study using the
ET 6–6]. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 15, 35–44.
Lissmann, I., Korntheuer, P., & Lohaus, A. (2007). Assoziation
zwischen der Kompetenz zur Kontingenzerkennung im Alter
von drei und sechs Monaten und dem Entwicklungsstand im
Alter von ein und zwei Jahren [Association between compe-
tency to learn contingencies in three- to six-months-old infants
and developmental outcome when aged one and two years].
Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische
Psychologie, 39, 187–195.
Macha, T., Daseking, M., Vogel, M., & Petermann, F. (2008). Wie
stark verzerren sprachgebundene Leistungstests die Leistun-
gen sprachbeeinträchtigter Vorschulkinder? [How does verbal
testing bias the test results of preschool children with specific
language impairment]? Ergotherapie und Rehabilitation, 47,
No. 9.
Macha, T., Mayer, H., Petermann, F., Petermann, U., & Waldeck,
E. (2007). Einsatz von Entwicklungstests in der Rehabilitation
von Kindern mit Bewegungsstörungen [Developmental as-
sessment in rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy]. In
Deutsche Rentenversicherung (Ed.), 16. Rehabilitationswis-
senschaftliches Kolloquium (Report of the 16th Rehabilitation
Science Colloquium (pp. 567–568). Munich, Germany: DRV.
Macha, T., & Petermann, F. (2006). Psychologische Tests in der
Pädiatrie [Psychological testing in pediatrics]. Monatsschrift
Kinderheilkunde, 154, 298–304.
Macha, T., Proske, A., & Petermann, F. (2005). Validität von Ent-
wicklungstests [Validity of developmental tests]. Kindheit und
Entwicklung, 14, 150–162.
Melchers, P., & Preuß, U. (Eds.). (2001). Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children (German version) (6th ed.). Leiden, The
Netherlands: PITS.
Michaelis, R., & Niemann, G. (2004). Entwicklungsneurologie
und Neuropädiatrie [Developmental neurology and neurope-
diatrics] (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Thieme.
Petermann, F., & Lepach, A. (2007). Klinische Kinderneuropsy-
chologie [Clinical child neuropsychology]. Kindheit und Ent-
wicklung, 16, 1–6.
Petermann, F., Stein, I.A., & Macha, T. (2006a). Entwicklungstest
sechs Monate bis sechs Jahre (ET 6–6) [Developmental Test
Six Months to Six Years] (3rd ed.). Frankfurt-am-Main, Ger-
many: Harcourt Test Services.
Petermann, F., Stein, I.A., & Macha, T. (2006b). Entwicklungsdi-
agnostik mit dem ET 6–6 [Developmental Assessment using
the ET 6–6] (3rd ed.). Frankfurt/M: Harcourt Test Services.
Plomin, R., Emde, R.N., Braungart, J.M., Campos, J., Corley, R.,
160 T. Macha & F. Petermann: The ET 6–6
Fulker, D.W. et al. (1993). Genetic change and continuity from
fourteen to twenty months: The MacArthur Longitudinal Twin
Study. Child Development, 64, 1354–1376.
Rapp, M., Thyen, U., Müller-Steinhardt, K., & Kohl, M. (2005).
Morbidität und Mortalität extrem frühgeborener Kinder in
Schleswig-Holstein. Nachuntersuchung von extrem frühgebo-
renen Kindern unter 27 + 0 Schwangerschaftswochen im kor-
rigierten Alter von drei bis sechs Jahren in Schleswig-Holstein
[Morbidity and mortality of extremely low gestational age in-
fants in Schleswig-Holstein. Follow-up at three to six years
corrected age of infants < 27 + 0 weeks gestation in Schles-
wig-Holstein, Germany]. Zeitschrift für Geburtshilfe und Neo-
natologie, 209, 135–143.
Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Devel-
opment and individual differences. Child Development, 63,
1–19.
Schneider, W., Wolke, D., Schlagmüller, M., & Meyer, R. (2004).
Pathways to school achievement in very preterm und full term
children: The Bavarian Longitudinal Study. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 19, 385–406.
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology 2008; Vol. 216(3):154–160
Sroufe, L.A. (1997) Psychopathology as an outcome of develop-
ment. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 251–268.
Touwen, B.C.L. (1984). Normale neurologische Entwicklung:
Die nicht bestehenden Inter- und Intra-Item-Beziehungen
[Normal neurologic development: The phenomenon of nonex-
isting interitem and intraitem relation]. In R. Michaelis, R.
Nolte, M. Buchwald-Saal, & G. Haas (Eds.), Entwicklungs-
neurologie [Developmental neurology] (pp. 17–24). Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Dipl.-Psych. Thorsten Macha / Prof. Dr. Franz Petermann
Center of Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation
Grazer Straße 2–6
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Tel. +49 421 218-4618
Fax +49 421 218-4617
E-mail fpeterm@uni-bremen.de
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers