Literature DB >> 21760526

Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care.

Marjolaine M Limbos1, David P Joyce.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the sensitivity and specificity of two brief, parent-completed developmental screening measures-the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS)-in children presenting to their primary care providers.
METHOD: A sample of 334 children aged 12 to 60 months was recruited. Parents completed the PEDS and the ASQ in their home or the primary care clinic of one of the investigators. The presence of ≥ 1 predictive concerns or abnormal domains was considered a positive screen. All children underwent evaluation (administered by a psychologist) with the following criterion measures: the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Third Edition or the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition, the Preschool Language Scale-Fourth Edition, and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Second Edition.
RESULTS: The mean age of children was 32.3 months. Developmental delay was identified in 34 children (10%). The PEDS had moderate sensitivity (74%) but low specificity (64%); comparatively, the ASQ had significantly higher sensitivity (82%) and specificity (78%). The ASQ had moderate sensitivity and specificity across age subgroups, whereas the PEDS had either low sensitivity or specificity in each of the age subgroups, except for the ≤ 30 month group, where there was moderate sensitivity (78%) and specificity (75%). Using ≥ 2 predictive concerns on the PEDS or ≥ 2 abnormal domains on the ASQ significantly improved specificity of both tests (89% and 94%, respectively) but resulted in very low sensitivity (41% and 47%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics, demonstrating that both the ASQ and, to a lesser extent, the PEDS have reasonable test characteristics for developmental screening in primary care settings. Although the ASQ seems to have higher sensitivity and specificity across a variety of age groups, the choice of which measure to use should be determined by the practice setting, population served, and preference of the physician.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21760526     DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e31822552e9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dev Behav Pediatr        ISSN: 0196-206X            Impact factor:   2.225


  41 in total

1.  A plea for developmental motor screening in Canadian infants.

Authors:  Susan R Harris
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Developmental screening in South Africa: comparing the national developmental checklist to a standardized tool.

Authors:  Jeannie van der Linde; De Wet Swanepoel; Frances Page Glascoe; E M Louw; Bart Vinck
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 0.927

3.  Caretaker Awareness of Health Care Provided Developmental Screening: Increases from 2007 to 2012.

Authors:  Brian Barger; Andrew Roach; Gabriel Moreno
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2017-12

Review 4.  Recommendations on screening for developmental delay.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) during pregnancy and six-month infant development.

Authors:  Lyndsay A Avalos; Jeannette Ferber; Ousseny Zerbo; Allison L Naleway; Joanna Bulkley; Mark Thompson; Janet Cragan; Jennifer Williams; Roxana Odouli; Tia L Kauffman; Sarah Ball; Pat Shifflett; De-Kun Li
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 3.641

6.  Validation of the International Guide for Monitoring Child Development demonstrates good sensitivity and specificity in four diverse countries.

Authors:  Ilgi Ozturk Ertem; Vibha Krishnamurthy; Mphelekedzeni C Mulaudzi; Yanina Sguassero; Burcu Bilik; Roopa Srinivasan; Hakan Balta; Ozlem Gulumser; Geliang Gan; Lisa Calvocoressi; Benjamin Johnson; Veronika Shabanova; Brian W C Forsyth
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.299

7.  Maternal polycystic ovarian syndrome and early offspring development.

Authors:  Griffith A Bell; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Sunni L Mumford; Hyojun Park; James Mills; Erin M Bell; Miranda Broadney; Edwina H Yeung
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 6.918

8.  Developmental Outcomes of Late Preterm Infants From Infancy to Kindergarten.

Authors:  Prachi Shah; Niko Kaciroti; Blair Richards; Wonjung Oh; Julie C Lumeng
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Evidence-based milestones for surveillance of cognitive, language, and motor development.

Authors:  R Christopher Sheldrick; Ellen C Perrin
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.107

10.  Association Between Screen Time and Children's Performance on a Developmental Screening Test.

Authors:  Sheri Madigan; Dillon Browne; Nicole Racine; Camille Mori; Suzanne Tough
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 16.193

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.