Maia M Noeder1, Beth A Logan1, Kari L Struemph1, Nancy Condon2, Isabel Mueller2, Barbara Sands3, Ryan R Davies3, Erica Sood1. 1. 1Nemours Neurosciences Center,Division of Behavioral Health,Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children,Wilmington,Delaware,United States of America. 2. 2Department of Outpatient Therapy Services,Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children,Wilmington,Delaware,United States of America. 3. 3Nemours Cardiac Center,Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children,Wilmington,Delaware.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Standardised developmental screening tools are important for the evaluation and management of developmental disorders in children with CHD; however, psychometric properties and clinical utility of screening tools, such as the Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3), have not been examined in the CHD population. We hypothesised that the ASQ-3 would be clinically useful for this population. Study design ASQ-3 developmental classifications for 163 children with CHD at 6, 12, 24, and/or 36 months of age were compared with those obtained from concurrent developmental testing with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition. RESULTS: When ASQ-3 screening failure was defined as ⩾1 SD below the normative mean, specificity (⩾81.9%) and negative predictive value (⩾81.0%) were high across ASQ-3 areas. Sensitivity was high for gross motor skills (79.6%), increased with age for communication (35.7-100%), and generally decreased with age for problem solving (73.1-50.0%). When ASQ-3 screening failure was defined as ⩾2 SD below the normative mean, specificity (⩾93.6%) and positive predictive value (⩾74.5%) were generally high across ASQ-3 areas, but sensitivity was low (31.1%) to fair (62.8%). The ASQ-3 showed improved accuracy in predicting delays over clinical risk factors alone. CONCLUSIONS: The ASQ-3 appears to be a clinically useful tool for screening development in children with CHD, although its utility varied on the basis of developmental area and time point. Clinicians are encouraged to refer children scoring ⩾1 SD below the normative mean on any ASQ-3 area for formal developmental evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: Standardised developmental screening tools are important for the evaluation and management of developmental disorders in children with CHD; however, psychometric properties and clinical utility of screening tools, such as the Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3), have not been examined in the CHD population. We hypothesised that the ASQ-3 would be clinically useful for this population. Study design ASQ-3 developmental classifications for 163 children with CHD at 6, 12, 24, and/or 36 months of age were compared with those obtained from concurrent developmental testing with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition. RESULTS: When ASQ-3 screening failure was defined as ⩾1 SD below the normative mean, specificity (⩾81.9%) and negative predictive value (⩾81.0%) were high across ASQ-3 areas. Sensitivity was high for gross motor skills (79.6%), increased with age for communication (35.7-100%), and generally decreased with age for problem solving (73.1-50.0%). When ASQ-3 screening failure was defined as ⩾2 SD below the normative mean, specificity (⩾93.6%) and positive predictive value (⩾74.5%) were generally high across ASQ-3 areas, but sensitivity was low (31.1%) to fair (62.8%). The ASQ-3 showed improved accuracy in predicting delays over clinical risk factors alone. CONCLUSIONS: The ASQ-3 appears to be a clinically useful tool for screening development in children with CHD, although its utility varied on the basis of developmental area and time point. Clinicians are encouraged to refer children scoring ⩾1 SD below the normative mean on any ASQ-3 area for formal developmental evaluation.
Authors: Renée Sananes; Cedric Manlhiot; Edmond Kelly; Lisa K Hornberger; William G Williams; Daune MacGregor; Raymond Buncic; Brian W McCrindle Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: R E Brandlistuen; K Stene-Larsen; H Holmstrøm; M A Landolt; L T Eskedal; M E Vollrath Journal: Child Care Health Dev Date: 2010-09-05 Impact factor: 2.508
Authors: Ragnhild Eek Brandlistuen; Kim Stene-Larsen; Henrik Holmstrom; Markus A Landolt; Leif T Eskedal; Margarete E Vollrath Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: B J Woodward; L-A Papile; J R Lowe; V L Laadt; M L Shaffer; R Montman; K L Watterberg Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Luregn J Schlapbach; Stephen Brian Horton; Debbie Amanda Long; John Beca; Simon Erickson; Marino Festa; Yves d'Udekem; Nelson Alphonso; David Winlaw; Kerry Johnson; Carmel Delzoppo; Kim van Loon; B Gannon; Jonas Fooken; Antje Blumenthal; Paul Young; Mark Jones; Warwick Butt; Andreas Schibler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ettore Piro; Ingrid Anne Mandy Schierz; Gregorio Serra; Giuseppe Puccio; Mario Giuffrè; Giovanni Corsello Journal: Ital J Pediatr Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 2.638