OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the ten questions screen as a measure of childhood disability for epidemiologic studies in populations lacking resources for professional assessment of children's development and functioning. DESIGN: Household survey and screening of children in phase one followed by clinical assessments in phase two. SETTING: Karachi, Pakistan. PARTICIPANTS: A cluster sample of 6365 children, aged 2 to 9 years, screened using the ten questions and a subsample referred for clinical assessments. MAIN RESULTS: Although the sensitivity of the ten questions as a global screen for serious cognitive, motor, and seizure disabilities is high (84-100%), its sensitivity for identifying and distinguishing specific types of disability and for detecting vision, hearing, and mild disabilities, overall, is limited (generally < 80% and as low as 4% for mild vision disability). The predictive value of a positive screening result is also limited-using the ten questions in surveys without clinical confirmation results in overestimation of the prevalence of serious disability by more than 300%. CONCLUSIONS: The ten questions screen is not an assessment tool. Its utility lies in its ability to screen or select a fraction of the population at high risk for serious disability. As a screening tool, it allows scarce diagnostic and other professional resources to be efficiently directed toward those at high risk.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the ten questions screen as a measure of childhood disability for epidemiologic studies in populations lacking resources for professional assessment of children's development and functioning. DESIGN: Household survey and screening of children in phase one followed by clinical assessments in phase two. SETTING: Karachi, Pakistan. PARTICIPANTS: A cluster sample of 6365 children, aged 2 to 9 years, screened using the ten questions and a subsample referred for clinical assessments. MAIN RESULTS: Although the sensitivity of the ten questions as a global screen for serious cognitive, motor, and seizure disabilities is high (84-100%), its sensitivity for identifying and distinguishing specific types of disability and for detecting vision, hearing, and mild disabilities, overall, is limited (generally < 80% and as low as 4% for mild vision disability). The predictive value of a positive screening result is also limited-using the ten questions in surveys without clinical confirmation results in overestimation of the prevalence of serious disability by more than 300%. CONCLUSIONS: The ten questions screen is not an assessment tool. Its utility lies in its ability to screen or select a fraction of the population at high risk for serious disability. As a screening tool, it allows scarce diagnostic and other professional resources to be efficiently directed toward those at high risk.
Authors: Penny Lewthwaite; Ashia Begum; Mong How Ooi; Brian Faragher; Boon Foo Lai; Indunil Sandaradura; Anand Mohan; Gaurav Mandhan; Pratibha Meharwade; S Subhashini; Gulia Abhishek; Asma Begum; Srihari Penkulinti; M Veera Shankar; R Ravikumar; Carolyn Young; Mary Jane Cardosa; V Ravi; See Chang Wong; Rachel Kneen; Tom Solomon Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Michael J Boivin; Jonathan Weiss; Ronak Chhaya; Victoria Seffren; Jorem Awadu; Alla Sikorskii; Bruno Giordani Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Gretchen L Birbeck; Nicholas Beare; Susan Lewallen; Simon J Glover; Malcolm E Molyneux; Peter W Kaplan; Terrie E Taylor Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Gretchen L Birbeck; Malcolm E Molyneux; Peter W Kaplan; Karl B Seydel; Yamikani F Chimalizeni; Kondwani Kawaza; Terrie E Taylor Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Margaret Semrud-Clikeman; Regilda Anne A Romero; Elizabeth L Prado; Elsa G Shapiro; Paul Bangirana; Chandy C John Journal: Child Neuropsychol Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Douglas G Postels; Terrie E Taylor; Malcolm Molyneux; Kara Mannor; Peter W Kaplan; Karl B Seydel; Yamikani F Chimalizeni; Kondwani Kawaza; Gretchen L Birbeck Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 9.910