Home  About us  Contact
 

Developmental Screening (developmental + screening)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences85%

Selected Abstracts

Assessment of motor development and function in preschool children

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESEARCH REVIEW, Issue 3 2005
Beth L. Tieman
Abstract The process of identification of children with delays or disorders in motor development includes developmental screening, examination, and reexamination. Throughout this process, various types of measures are used, including discriminative and evaluative measures. Discriminative and evaluative measures of motor development and function that are commonly used for preschool-aged children include the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd edition, Toddler and Infant Motor Evaluation, Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, and Gross Motor Function Measure. Selecting an appropriate measure is a crucial part of the examination process and should be geared toward the purpose of testing and characteristics of the child. Evidence of reliability and validity are important considerations for selection of a measure. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. MRDD Research Reviews 2005;11:189,196. [source]

Developmental assessment of preterm infants at 2 years: validity of parent reports

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE & CHILD NEUROLOGY, Issue 1 2008
Samantha Johnson PhD CPsychol
Parental questionnaires are inexpensive alternatives to standardized testing for outcome measurement. The Parent Report of Children's Abilities has previously been revised (PARCA-R) and validated for use with very-preterm infants at 2 years of age. This study revalidated the PARCA-R for assessing cognition in a larger and more inclusive sample of preterm infants. One hundred and sixty-four children (82 males, 82 females) of <32 weeks' gestation (median 29wks, interquartile range [IQR] 28-30wks); and median birthweight 1200g (IQR 925-1463g) were evaluated using the Mental Development Index (MDI) of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development - 2nd edition (BSID-II) at 2 years' corrected age. Parents completed the PARCA-R questionnaire. Significant correlations between PARCA-R Parent Report Composite (PRC) scores and MDI scores (r=0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.82, p<0.01) demonstrated concurrent validity. A receiver operating characteristic-determined PRC cut-off of <44 had optimal discriminatory power (area under curve 0.92) for identifying MDI <70, with 85% sensitivity (95% CI 0.58-0.96), 87% specificity (95% CI 0.81-0.92), 98% negative predictive value (95% CI 0.95-1), and 37% positive predictive value (95% CI 0.22-0.54). The PARCA-R has good concurrent validity and diagnostic utility for identifying cognitive delay in very-preterm infants at 2 years of age. It is useful for outcome measurement, developmental screening, and facilitating parental involvement at folow-up. [source]

RE: Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder , a critical comment: author's reply

ACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 9 2010
Kirsten Holmberg
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder , a critical comment

ACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 1 2010
Björn Kadesjö
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention-deficit,/,hyperactivity disorder at age 10

ACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 1 2010
Kirsten Holmberg
Abstract Aim:, The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of developmental screening for deficits in attention, motor control and perception or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (DAMP/ADHD) at 5.5 and 7 years of age for diagnosing ADHD in grade 4. Method:, The study population consisted of 442 children from a cohort study of ADHD in 10-year olds in one municipality in Stockholm County. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of a developmental screening at 5.5 and at 7 years of age for being diagnosed with ADHD at 10 years of age was calculated. Results:, The sensitivity was 44%, the specificity 85% and the positive predictive value for having a diagnosis of pervasive ADHD in 4th grade was 15%, when at least two deviations in nine items was used as the cut-off point in 5.5-year screening at Child Health Centres (CHCs). With a cut-off score of at least two deviations in four items rated by parents or and teachers in 1st grade, these estimates were 58%, 81% and 15% respectively. Conclusion:, This study demonstrates that developmental screening for DAMP/ADHD at 5.5 and 7 years of age does not identify children who are diagnosed with ADHD in grade 4 with a high degree of selectivity. [source]

Parent-completed developmental screening in a Norwegian population sample: a comparison with US normative data

ACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 11 2004
H Janson
Aim: To compare normative data of a Norwegian translation of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires with original US normative data. Methods: Norwegian-born mothers randomly selected from the population register completed Norwegian translations of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires, a series of 19 age-specific child development screening questionnaires each made up of 30 items in five domains: Communication, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Problem Solving, and Personal-Social. Domain score group differences with original US normative data on 10 age-specific questionnaires (for ages 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 mo) were investigated. The Norwegian data consisted of 1341 children, varying between 82 and 176 per age interval. Results: On the whole, parents' reports of their children's development were very similar in the two data sets. Only five out of 50 mean comparisons revealed a mean difference either greater than a Cohen's d of 0.5 or greater than the smallest increment on a domain score. The variation in scores tended to be somewhat smaller in the Norwegian sample. Conclusion: It seems reasonable to expect that domain scores on the Ages and Stages Questionnaires may be interpreted in the same way in Norway and the United States, and these results may also generalize to other Western settings. These findings from a true random sample also increase the confidence in the original normative data. [source]