CGA vs. chronological age

[mimid]

I know one thing that always gets me confused is what sort of things we are supposed to use cga for vs. chronological age. My most recent concern about this is in regards to hours of sleep and number of naps.

I decided to go with cga since a lot of their development is sleep dependent. (They aren't going to learn if they are over tired, KWIM?)

Anyone else have questions about this?

[boscopup]

For most things, I used adjusted age. I think the only thing I used actual age for was feeding solids, and that's only because DS was begging for food and took to it right away (ie, grabbed the spoon and was feeding himself mashed banana on the first try, and ate much more than the 1 tsp amount so many recommend starting with!). I think usually it's recommended to go by adjusted age for feeding solids as well. DS was 6.5 months actual age, and 4 months adjusted, but he was just plain ready!

Developmentally, DS was caught up with actual age by 6 months, but that's only because the range of "normal" is so wide at that point. He always has acted pretty much like a normal child his adjusted age (on his due date list, he's ahead in some things and behind others in other things - pretty much normal kid). Although now that he's 2, there's not really a big difference between his actual age and adjusted age, so the doctor doesn't even mention it. But if he were to have been behind in anything for actual age, she would have looked at adjusted age and seen if he was still in the range of "normal" for that.

Clear as mud? I know this age stuff is confusing.

[Valian]

We use adjusted for almost everything in terms of setting our expectations. especially re:sleep and eating.

The only place we've noticed much difference is some gross motor skills where his extra time in the outside seems to have him more in line with chronological age.

[sweetpeasmom]

I always used adjusted age, especially for the first year. After that, it seems to matter less and less.

[mimid]

Thanks everyone! I was feeling a little guilty like I was always putting them to sleep and not interacting enough with them. It seems like it is eat-sleep-eat-sleep-eat-interact a little-sleep. I have to keep telling myself they are only 1 1/2 months and are supposed to sleep.

[Amys1st]

Maggie is just over 5 mos but adjusted she is 7 weeks old. Again, she does many things a 5 mo old do but also has the needs of a 7 week old.
Social wise she does many things a 5 mo old would do. Very weird!

[boscopup]

Originally Posted by mimid

I was feeling a little guilty like I was always putting them to sleep and not interacting enough with them.

If they're going to sleep, then they needed the sleep. So please don't feel guilty. Newborns sleep alot, and I found that DS slept more than a full term baby his adjusted age. In fact, he still sleeps really well! It's scary. But when he got to the point of wanting to play and interact, he was awake! If he needed to sleep, he'd sleep! So yes, you pretty much eat-sleep-eat-sleep-eat-sleep (with diaper changes throughout all that). But once they get to the point of actually playing with things (which I was surprised at how long it takes before a full term baby is able to play - now add the number of weeks early your babies came), they'll stay awake if they want/need to play/interact.

You're obviously listening to THEIR needs, not what someone else says they need. That's good! You're being a great mom.

[mimid]

Thanks gals! I charted when they slept and how much they were eating just to ease those fears today. Turns out they napped 5.5, 6 and 7 hours. Plus 7-8 hours of sleep means they are up about 10 hours which is plenty.

And I KWYM, Amy. The girls do a lot of social things on time or even ahead. (I can't get Chaya to stop rolling!) and they've grown so much but they still have those needs.

[bdanap]

The pediatricians go by adjusted age for developmental expectations up until 2 years old....then chronological age is used thereafter.