Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
CME
Editor Remarks
Editorial
ORGINAL ARTICLE
Original Article
Review Article
View Point
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
CME
Editor Remarks
Editorial
ORGINAL ARTICLE
Original Article
Review Article
View Point
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Case Report
ARTICLE IN PRESS
doi:
10.25259/BJPSY_21_2025

Early Intervention Strategies in Williams Syndrome: A Case Report of Multimodal Therapeutic Approach in a 3-Year-Old Child

Department of Psychology, Dr. MGR Janaki College (Affiliated to Madras University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Author image

*Corresponding author: Mufina Begam, Department of Psychology, Dr. MGR Janaki College (Affiliated to Madras University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, R.A. Puram, Chennai, 600027, India. mufinabegamj@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Begam M. Early Intervention Strategies in Williams Syndrome: A Case Report of Multimodal Therapeutic Approach in a 3-Year-Old Child. Bengal J Psychiatry. doi: 10.25259/BJPSY_21_2025

Abstract

Williams syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by distinctive facial features, cardiovascular abnormalities, and a unique neurocognitive profile, for which early intervention is crucial in optimizing developmental outcomes. We report the case of a 3-year-old female diagnosed with WS who presented with delayed language development, characteristic facial features, and cardiovascular anomalies. The child exhibited the typical WS cognitive behavioural profile, with relative strengths in social interaction and expressive language alongside marked deficits in non-verbal problem-solving and attention. A comprehensive multimodal intervention was implemented, incorporating speech therapy, behavioural modifications, and structured play activities facilitated by an adult. Following intervention, notable improvements were observed in social interactions with peers and in attention span during structured tasks. This case underscores the importance of early identification and individualized, comprehensive intervention strategies tailored to the specific cognitive and behavioural profile of WS in improving developmental outcomes in rare genetic disorders.

Keywords

Developmental delay
Early intervention
Genetic disorder
Paediatric neurodevelopment
WS

INTRODUCTION

Williams syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic disorder affecting approximately 1 in 10,000 individuals, caused by a microdeletion on chromosome 7q11.23.1. First described by J.C.P. Williams in 1961,2 the syndrome is characterized by a distinctive combination of physical features, cardiovascular abnormalities, and a unique neurocognitive profile. The condition presents with supravalvular aortic stenosis, distinctive facial features, and a characteristic cognitive profile marked by relative strengths in language and social cognition alongside significant deficits in visuospatial processing and executive function.3 The syndrome's physical manifestations follow a recognizable natural history pattern.4

The neurocognitive phenotype of WS is particularly intriguing, as individuals typically demonstrate hyper sociability, strong verbal abilities, and musical interests, contrasting sharply with their difficulties in mathematics, spatial reasoning, and fine motor control.5 This uneven developmental profile necessitates specialized intervention strategies that capitalize on strengths while addressing specific deficits. The development of this distinctive behavioural phenotype has been hypothesized to result from specific neurobiological mechanisms associated with the genetic deletion.6

Early intervention in WS has been shown to be particularly beneficial, with studies demonstrating improved outcomes when therapeutic interventions are initiated during the critical early developmental period.7 The present case report describes the clinical presentation and intervention strategies employed for a 3-year-old female with WS, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment approaches.

CASE REPORT

Patient information

A 3-year-old female from an urban area was referred for developmental assessment due to concerns regarding language development and behavioural manifestations. The patient was the first-born child of non-consanguineous parents with no significant family history of genetic disorders or developmental delays.

Clinical history

The patient was born at 40 weeks’ gestation following an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. A heart murmur was detected during early infancy, consistent with cardiovascular abnormalities associated with WS. Parents first noticed developmental concerns at 15 months of age when physical development appeared delayed compared to typical milestones.

At 18 months, the child demonstrated babbling behaviour with vocalizations predominantly directed toward adults. She exhibited characteristic hyper-sociability with adults while showing withdrawal from peer interactions. The child displayed easy distractibility but showed delight in adult attention and approval.

Physical examination

Physical examination revealed the characteristic facial features of WS, including a small upturned nose, small chin, wide mouth, and distinctive facial morphology. Gross motor skills were noted to be clumsy, while fine motor skills showed moderate development.

Developmental assessment

Developmental evaluation revealed significant delays in language comprehension and fine motor skills, while expressive language skills showed relatively normal development. The patient demonstrated poor attention and concentration, with limited sustained focus on activities, as shown in Table 1. During the structured play assessment, the child moved rapidly between toys with minimal engagement in any single activity.

Table 1: Developmental milestones and assessment findings
Developmental domain Chronological age Functional age Clinical observation Intervention priority
Gross motor
skills
36 months 24-30 months Clumsy movements, delayed physical development Moderate
Fine motor
skills
36 months 18-24 months Moderate hand-finger coordination for eating/drawing Moderate
Expressive
language
36 months 30-36 months Relatively normal development, clear articulation Low
Receptive
language
36 months 15-18 months Significant delays in comprehension High
Social
communication
36 months 24-30 months Hyper-sociable with adults, withdrawn with peers High
Cognitive
processing
36 months 11-14 months Poor attention, limited problem-solving High
Play
skills
36 months 11-14 months Brief toy engagement requires adult modeling High
Attention/
concentration
36 months 12-15 months Poor sustained attention, easily distractible High

The developmental play assessment indicated functioning at the 11-14-month level, with the ability to perform simple pretend play sequences following adult modelling. This finding suggested that imitation-based interventions could be particularly effective.

Diagnostic criteria

The diagnosis of WS was established based on the ICD-10 criteria (Q93.8), corresponding to the ICD-11 classification under LD90 (Williams–Beuren syndrome). The patient fulfilled multiple diagnostic features, including distinctive facial characteristics, cardiovascular abnormalities in the form of a heart murmur, global developmental delays, a characteristic behavioural profile, and significant speech and language delays.

Genetic counselling

Genetic counselling was provided to the parents to explain the genetic basis of WS, its typically sporadic occurrence, and the low recurrence risk in future pregnancies. The importance of genetic evaluation and counselling during future family planning was discussed to address parental concerns and support informed decision-making.

Intervention strategy

Multimodal therapeutic approach

A comprehensive intervention program was developed targeting the specific strengths and deficits identified in the assessment [Figure 1]. The intervention strategy incorporated multiple therapeutic modalities as outlined in Table 2.

Comprehensive multimodal intervention model for Williams syndrome
Figure 1:
Comprehensive multimodal intervention model for Williams syndrome
Table 2: Intervention strategies and implementation methods
Domain Intervention strategy Implementation method Expected outcome
Language development Multimodal communication Visual and auditory presentation of information Improved comprehension and expression
Attention/concentration Environmental modifications Minimize distractions, use name-calling, and touch Enhanced sustained attention
Social skills Adult-facilitated peer interaction Structured play activities with peer modeling Improved spontaneous peer interaction
Motor skills Hands-on learning approaches Modeling and imitation-based activities Enhanced fine and gross motor coordination
Cognitive processing Chunking and breakdown strategies Divide complex tasks into smaller components Improved task completion and understanding
Behavioural management Positive reinforcement Adult approval and structured feedback Reduced distractibility and improved compliance

Educational modifications

Educational programming emphasized interaction at the child’s level of non-verbal problem-solving abilities. Intervention strategies included presenting information using both verbal and visual modalities, ensuring sustained attention through name-calling and appropriate physical prompts, breaking complex instructions into smaller and more manageable components, and utilizing hands-on learning with adult modelling to reinforce understanding. Classroom seating was also optimized to minimize auditory distractions and support focused engagement during structured activities.

Social skills development

Given the patient’s relative strength in social interaction with adults, the intervention emphasized facilitating and generalizing these skills to peer interactions. This was achieved through adult-facilitated play activities involving other children, structured opportunities that encouraged spontaneous peer engagement, and the use of peer modeling strategies to promote appropriate social behaviours.

Imitation-based learning approaches were also incorporated to support the acquisition of social skills within naturalistic interactional contexts.

In addition, specific emphasis was placed on social boundaries, education, and stranger awareness, given the child’s hyper-sociable tendencies. Structured role-play activities, adult-mediated discussions, and consistent behavioural cues were used to help the child differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar individuals. These strategies aimed to promote age-appropriate social safety and improve regulation of social behaviour.

Outcome and follow-up

The intervention program demonstrated positive outcomes across multiple domains. The patient showed improved attention span during structured activities and enhanced ability to engage in peer interactions with adult facilitation.

Progress was most notable in areas where interventions built upon existing strengths, particularly in social communication and imitation-based learning.

DISCUSSION

This case illustrates the complex neurodevelopmental profile characteristic of WS and the importance of individualized intervention strategies. The patient's presentation aligns with established literature describing the WS phenotype, including the characteristic dissociation between social-communicative strengths and visuospatial-executive deficits.8

The intervention approach utilized in this case demonstrates the effectiveness of targeting specific cognitive and behavioural profiles rather than employing generic developmental interventions. This cognitive profile typically persists into adulthood, with continued challenges in visuospatial and executive domains.9 The success of imitation-based strategies is consistent with research indicating that individuals with WS show particular strength in social learning and modelling.10

The cardiovascular findings in this case, while not requiring immediate intervention, highlight the importance of ongoing medical surveillance in WS patients. Cardiovascular abnormalities occur in approximately 75% of individuals with WS and require lifelong monitoring.11 Understanding the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular pathology in WS is essential for optimizing long-term clinical management and treatment strategies.12

Limitations

This case report represents a single patient's experience and may not be generalizable to all individuals with WS. The relatively short follow-up period limits our ability to assess long-term intervention outcomes. Additionally, the lack of standardized assessment tools at the time of initial evaluation may have impacted the precision of developmental measurements.

Clinical implications

The findings from this case support the implementation of early, individualized intervention strategies in children with WS. Key clinical implications include the importance of capitalizing on relative social-communicative strengths while simultaneously addressing visuospatial and executive functioning deficits, the demonstrated effectiveness of adult-mediated strategies in facilitating peer interactions, and the value of multimodal intervention approaches that integrate both visual and auditory learning channels. Additionally, the case underscores the need for continued cardiovascular monitoring alongside developmental and behavioural interventions to ensure comprehensive clinical management.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights the distinctive neurodevelopmental profile of WS and underscores the value of early, individualized, multimodal intervention. Targeting the child’s specific strengths in social engagement while addressing deficits in attention, cognition, and peer interaction resulted in measurable improvements in functional outcomes. Early identification and tailored intervention remain essential in optimizing developmental trajectories in children with WS.

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge the patient and her family for their cooperation and consent, and we appreciate the efforts of the multidisciplinary healthcare team involved in the child’s assessment and intervention.

Ethical approval:

Institutional Review Board approval is not required.

Declaration of patient consent:

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patients have given their consent for their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Conflicts of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that they have used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the image creation and grammar checking.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil

References

  1. , , . Prevalence estimation of Williams syndrome. J Child Neurol. 2002;17:269-71.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . Supravalvular aortic stenosis. Circulation. 1961;24:1311-18.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , . The Williams syndrome cognitive profile. Brain Cogn. 2000;44:604-28.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . Natural history of Williams syndrome: Physical characteristics. J Pediatr. 1988;113:318-26.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , . The neurocognitive profile of Williams syndrome: A complex pattern of strengths and weaknesses. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12(Suppl 1):7-29.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Hypothesis for development of a behavioral phenotype in williams syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1990;37:126-30.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Understanding williams syndrome: Behavioral patterns and interventions. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2003:465.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Research review: williams syndrome-A critical review of the cognitive, behavioral, and neuroanatomical phenotype. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49:576-608.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , . Cognitive functioning in adults with williams syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39:183-89.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , . Distinctive personality characteristics of 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds with Williams syndrome. Dev Neuropsychol. 2003;23:269-90.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , et al. Cardiovascular abnormalities, interventions, and long-term outcomes in infantile Williams syndrome. J Pediatr. 2010;156:253-58.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , . Mechanisms and treatment of cardiovascular disease in Williams-beuren syndrome. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:1606-15.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections