Evaluation Of Developmental Status Research Articles

Screening Children in India: Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire.

Timely screening and surveillance of children for developmental delay and social-emotional learning difficulties are essential in Low- and Middle-Income Countries like India. Screening measures like the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) are considered suitable for India due to their low cost, easy accessibility, and no training requirement for administration. However, India lacks validated screening measures, and the PEDS and SDQ have yet to be validated for children in India. The study aimed to translate the PEDS and SDQ from English to Hindi and psychometrically evaluate the same measures on children aged 4-8 years in India. The original PEDS and SDQ forms and their translations were pilot tested on 55 participants and evaluated using data from 407 children with typical development (TD) and 59 children with developmental disability (DD). Parents and teachers reported no meaningful discrepancy between the original and translated (Hindi) questionnaires. Internal consistency for the PEDS was acceptable, but unacceptable for most subscales on the SDQ, for both TD and DD samples. Test-retest reliability was poor for the PEDS but adequate for the SDQ. Results from known-group validity testing showed that the PEDS scores could be used to distinguish between the TD and DD samples. The results from this study provide further support for the use of the PEDS and SDQ in developing countries like India.

Cultural and linguistic applicability of the English PEDS tools in a low-income community: A caregiver perspective

Background. Regular developmental surveillance using structured developmental screening tools is a proven way to effectively identify developmental delays and disabilities. Most screening tools are developed and standardised in high-income countries and then adapted and translated for low-and middle-income countries. However, cultural differences and viewpoints make it challenging to translate and adapt developmental screening tools for low-income communities.Objectives. To determine caregivers’ perspectives on linguistic and cultural appropriateness of the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and the PEDS: Developmental Milestones (DM) as a first step in the adaptation process for low-income communities in South Africa.Method. Participants (N=102) were selected using convenience sampling at an immunisation clinic. We employed a survey researchdesign. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative survey feedback survey was analysed using data-driven inductive methodology.Results. On the PEDS questionnaire, 38.2% of participants indicated the term ‘development’ on question 1 was not suitable; and 51%preferred the phrase ‘sometimes worry’ more than the phrase ‘have any concerns’ for questions 2 - 9. On the PEDS:DM, 58 of the 124questions were deemed difficult. Most questions were problematic owing to cultural or linguistic differences (49 questions), while 9questions were too difficult for the child’s age. The expressive language developmental domain had the most challenges.Conclusion. The present study relied on robust community participation, enabling community-led adaptation of the PEDS tools. Items on the tools were viewed solely from a community perspective, empowering the community to be ‘experts’ in this process, ensuring greater contextual relevance and applicability of the tools, as well as generalisability to similar low-income communities.

Early Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review and Analysis of the Risks and Benefits.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition made up of enduring challenges in social communication and interaction and the presence of repetitive and restricted behavior patterns. Early diagnosis of autism is crucial for timely intervention and improved long-term outcomes. This review aims to explore some of its signs and symptoms, look into some diagnostic tools, and analyze the benefits and risks associated with an early diagnosis of autism. The symptoms of ASD vary from child to child, some of which are: avoidance of eye contact, lack of response to names, excessive fear, and lack of interactive and pretend play. Early identification of these symptoms by caregivers and healthcare providers facilitates the need for diagnosis and appropriate interventions. Some screening and diagnostic tools that have been found to help make the diagnosis are the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up (M-CHAT-R/F), the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ), the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), and the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), amongst others. The benefits of early diagnosis include the opportunity for early intervention, which has been shown to enhance developmental outcomes and improve adaptive skills. Early identification allows for the implementation of specialized interventions tailored to the specific needs of individuals with autism, targeting social communication, language development, and behavioral challenges. Furthermore, early diagnosis enables families to access appropriate support services, educational resources, and community programs, facilitating better coping mechanisms, reducing parental stress, and increasing adult independence. However, early diagnosis of autism also entails certain risks. One significant concern is the potential for labeling and stigmatization, which can impact the child's self-esteem and social interactions. There is a risk of overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis, leading to unnecessary interventions and treatments. Additionally, the diagnostic process can be lengthy, complex, and emotionally challenging for families, requiring comprehensive assessments by multidisciplinary teams. This review highlights the importance of a balanced approach when considering the benefits and risks of early diagnosis. Early identification allows for timely interventions that significantly improve developmental outcomes and quality of life for individuals with autism. To mitigate the risks, it is crucial to ensure accurate and reliable diagnostic procedures, support families throughout the process, and promote societal awareness and acceptance. We also highlighted some future directions in the management of autism, including the use of biomarkers and the use of artificial intelligence and learning for diagnosing ASD.

Routine developmental screening in Australian general practice: a pilot study

BackgroundParents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status, (PEDS), is a validated screening tool designed for primary health care clinicians to assess child development. Despite widespread use by local government child-nurse services, PEDS has not been tested in Australian general practice. We examined the effect of an intervention that aimed to use PEDS to improve documented assessment of child developmental status during routine general practice consultations.MethodsThe study took place in a single general practice in Melbourne, Australia. The intervention included training of all general practice staff regarding PEDS processes and provision of PEDS questionnaires, scoring and interpretation forms. Mixed methods incorporated audits of clinical records of young children (1 to ≤ 5 years) before and after the intervention, and written questionnaires and a focus group (informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model) with receptionists, practice nurses and general practitioners.ResultsDocumented developmental status more than doubled after the intervention with almost one in three (30.4%) records documenting the PEDS tool. Overall, staff responses to questionnaires indicated that PEDS processes had been successfully implemented, half of the staff felt PEDS had developed their professional skills and clinicians expressed confidence using the tool (71%). Thematic analysis of the focus group transcript revealed divided reactions to PEDS screening with most barriers arising from general practitioners’ motivation to use PEDS tools and perceptions of environmental constraints.ConclusionsA team-practice intervention that applied PEDS training and implementation, more than doubled documented rates of child developmental status during routine visits. Solutions to underlying barriers could be incorporated into a revised training module. Future studies need to test the tool in more methodologically robust studies that include analysis of the outcomes of developmental surveillance and long-term sustainability of PEDS use in practices.

Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire as Screening Measures for Children in India: A Scoping Review.

Due to the limited availability of suitable measures, screening children for developmental delays and social-emotional learning has long been a challenge in India. This scoping review examined the use of the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS: Developmental Milestones (PEDS:DM), and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) with children (<13 years old) in India. The scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute Protocol to identify primary research studies that examined the use of the PEDS, PEDS:DM, and SDQ in India between 1990 and 2020. A total of seven studies for the PEDS and eight studies for the SDQ were identified for inclusion in the review. There were no studies using the PEDS:DM. Two empirical studies used the PEDS, while seven empirical studies used the SDQ. This review represents the first step in understanding the use of screening tools with children in India.

Associations of household unmet basic needs and health outcomes among very low birth weight children.

We examined associations of past year household hardships (housing, energy, food, and healthcare hardships) with postnatal growth, developmental risk, health status, and hospitalization among children 0-36 months born with very low birth weight (VLBW) and the extent that these relationships differed by receipt of child supplemental security income (SSI). We examined cross-sectional data from 695 families. Growth was measured as weight-for-age z-score change. Developmental risk was defined as ≥1 concerns on the "Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status" screening tool. Child health status was categorized as excellent/good vs. fair/poor. Hospitalizations excluded birth hospitalizations. Compared to children with no household hardships, odds of developmental risk were greater with 1 hardship (aOR 2.0 [1.26, 3.17]) and ≥2 hardships (aOR) 1.85 [1.18, 2.91], and odds of fair/poor child health (aOR) 1.59 [1.02, 2.49] and hospitalizations (aOR) 1.49 [1.00, 2.20] were greater among children with ≥2 hardships. In stratified analysis, associations of hardships and developmental risk were present for households with no child SSI and absent for households with child SSI. Household hardships were associated with developmental risk, fair/poor health status, and hospitalizations among VLBW children. Child SSI may be protective against developmental risk among children living in households with hardships.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Real-World Accuracy of Children’s Developmental Screening Tests

This review presents a list of developmental screening tests used in clinical settings worldwide and provides a broad estimate of their accuracy (PROSPERO: CRD42021236474). Following the PRISMA Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) guidelines, this review involved searching PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (for manual searching). Inclusion criteria included studies published in English through 2020 that compared the accuracy of developmental screening tests against developmental diagnostic tests among children under 13 years of age. Six researchers, in pairs, independently selected the studies and extracted the data. A hierarchical model was applied to meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the tests, and meta-regression was used to identify the moderators using R 4.1.3 software. The meta-analysis included 56 studies (17 screening tests and 61 outcomes). The most frequently used screening tests were the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST), and Parent's Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 (95% CI= 0.69-0.80) and 0.76 (95% CI= 0.71-0.80), and the overall diagnostic accuracy of the total outcomes (area under the curve) was 0.80. High heterogeneity was observed between the included studies with various thresholds of the tests. Participants' developmental concerns at the baseline significantly moderated the accuracy of the screening tests, resulting in double the positive predictive value and prevalence compared to those without the concerns. We recommend a standardized process of validation studies for diagnostic accuracy, to ensure the effectiveness of developmental screening tests in clinical settings. Accuracy of Developmental Screening Tools among Children in Real World: a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/; CRD42021236474.

A multiphased cultural and contextual adaptation of the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status tools for a low-income community: A South African case study.

Culturally relevant developmental screening is one of the best ways to appropriately identify developmental delays and disabilities in children as early as possible across diverse cultural backgrounds. This study aimed to adapt the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) tools for a low-income community in South Africa by using a detailed multiphased cultural and contextual adaption process. A three-phase mixed-method design relying on triangulation of data was used. Data were collected at an immunization clinic in a low-income community in Mamelodi, South Africa. Phase 1 was a focus group discussion with 11 community participants. The topics explored the possible changes to the PEDS tools to make them more relevant to the community. Phase 1 informed Phase 2 where 12 early childhood development experts achieved consensus through a two-round survey on a modified Delphi method. In Phase 3, a draft of the PEDS tools-SA was presented to the authors of the PEDS tools for final approval. Of 55 questions that were adapted for the PEDS tools-SA, two original questions (3.6%), 14 questions from the expert suggestions (25.4%) and 39 from the community participant's suggestions (71%) were included. A final version of the PEDS tools-SA was created. This study used a systematic method to adapt the PEDS tools to create the culturally appropriate PEDS tool-SA for a low-income community in South Africa, informed by community stakeholders' views from the first step. This resulted in a high-quality adaptation process that is more likely to result in a tool that is more acceptable to caregivers from a low-income South African community.

Designing and validating the Dubai Tool for Developmental Screening (DTDS).

BackgroundEarly detection of developmental problems is vital for facilitating early access to targeted intervention and augmenting its beneficial outcomes. Standardized developmental screening tools are known to enhance detection rates of developmental problems compared to clinical judgment alone and are widely recommended to be used in infants and young children. Most of the available developmental screening tools have been developed in Western countries. Many of their items may not be suitable for other cultures while others are expensive. Currently, none of the developmental screening tools have been validated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with only a few available in the Arabic language.ObjectiveTo create and validate a developmental screening tool, in both English and Arabic, that is simple, quick to use, and culturally relevant to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) child population aged 9–48 months.MethodsThe available literature was used to create a list of developmental milestones in five domains for children aged 9–48 months, divided into seven age groups. The selected milestones were used to create questionnaires in both English and Arabic, which were pilot tested twice. Each time, the results were analyzed and used to select, modify, and rephrase questions. Validation of the Dubai Tool for Developmental Screening (DTDS) was done against Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) as a gold standard instrument. The DTDS and PEDS were administered cross-sectionally to parents of 1,400 children in seven age groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa agreement of the DTDS compared with PEDS were calculated.ResultsThe DTDS had a sensitivity of 100% in four age groups and 75–78% in the other three age groups. Specificity ranged from 96 to 99% across all age groups. The kappa measure showed substantial agreement in five age groups, a moderate agreement in one age group, and a fair agreement in one age group.ConclusionsThe DTDS is a valid screening tool for early identification of developmental delays and disabilities in early childhood.

A Scoping Review on the Use of the Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status and PEDS: Developmental Milestones Screening Tools

The Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS: Developmental Milestones (PEDS: DM) and PEDS tools (i.e., the PEDS and PEDS:DM combined for use) are parent-reported screening tools frequently used to identify young children requiring early intervention. An ideal screening tool for all contexts would be brief, inexpensive with appropriate test items and good psychometric properties. A scoping review was conducted to review studies that used the PEDS, PEDS:DM, and PEDS tools to screen for the need for further referrals and evaluation through parent report. Thirty articles, ranging from 2003 to 2020, conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs), were included from the 1,468 records identified. Studies conducted in HICs ( n = 19) included screening of special population groups and comparing validated tools. LMIC studies ( n = 11) focused on translations, combination of the PEDS tools, validations of tools, and use of an app-based tool (mHealth). High referral rates were obtained with PEDS (23–41%) and PEDS:DM (12–54%) in LMICs where at-risk populations are more prevalent and cultural differences may affect tool validity. A global dearth of research on PEDS:DM and PEDS tools exist; the review highlights factors that influence the validity and impact widespread use of the screening measures, especially in diverse populations and LMICs.

Elucidating the level of developmental risk in a busy paediatric practice clinic from a middle-income country.

Identifying young children with serious developmental concerns is a common challenge in paediatric settings around the world. Elucidating parental concerns about their children's development is a useful predictor of developmental status. The aim of this study is to elucidate the level of developmental risk in a busy outpatient paediatric clinic using the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and observe the associated factors in a middle-income country. Parents attending a medical appointment for their children in a paediatric outpatient clinic were asked to complete the PEDS and a questionnaire pertaining to sociodemographic details. A total of 151 parents were eligible to participate in the study. Parents also rated the ease of completion of the test with the response options being 'difficult, a little difficult, easy, very easy'. In our total sample, 9.3% (n = 14) were at high risk, 16.6% (n = 25) were at moderate risk and the remainder were at low/no risk. Being at high or moderate risk (25.8%, n = 39) was higher in male gender (p = 0.046) and older age children (p = 0.004). Hospitalization in a neonatal intensive care unit longer than 3days, maternal employment status/housewife, long duration of screen viewing were independent risk factors significantly associated with high or moderate risk in multivariable analyses. Among the participants, 98.7% of parents reported that the PEDS was easy or very easy to complete in the clinical setting. In this study, in a cosmopolitan city of a middle-income country, a quarter of children were observed to be at high or moderate risk. The findings highlight the importance of elucidating the prevalence of developmental concerns among the population to enable families to access universal high-quality early childhood services.

Indonesian Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) as Developmental Screening Tool for 0-3 Years Old Children

Background: Child development is an individualized, dynamic, and complex process. Screening for developmental delays in children is challenging. Parents have important roles in recognizing developmental delays in children, hence parent-completed questionnaire is a feasible option to screen for any developmental delays. The objective of this study is to analyze the items of Indonesian PEDS in 0-3 years old children as a screening tool for their development and behavior. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in Surabaya from August to September 2020. The questionnaire was distributed to mothers whose children were 0-3 years old. The item discrimination analysis was grouped into 0-17 months and 18-36 months. A point-biserial correlation test was carried out with a minimum significant correlation coefficient was 0.3 and a p-value &lt;0.05. Results: A total of 92 mothers were enrolled in this study. Forty mothers were included in the 0-17 months group and 52 mothers in the 18-36 months group. There were four significant aspects of child development in the 0–17-month group, yet only expressive language and articulation had a strong correlation coefficient. While in the 18–36-month group, global/cognitive and social-emotional had a strong correlation coefficient. The other aspects had a correlation coefficient of &gt; 0.3 (p&lt;0.05) in both groups. Conclusion: The Indonesian PEDS is a potential developmental screening tool for Indonesian children aged 0-3 years old.

Novel two-tiered developmental screening programme for Singaporean toddlers: a quality improvement report

Early identification of developmental delays with timely intervention, especially before the age of 3 years, can improve child development. In Singapore, however, diagnosis and intervention for developmental delays occur at...

Diagnostic Accuracy of Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS Developmental Milestones, and PEDS Combined in Indian Children Aged Less than 2Years.

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Parent's Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS Developmental Milestones (PEDS:DM) and PEDS Combined for developmental screening of Indian children aged less than 2 y. A hospital-based study of diagnostic accuracy was conducted over 17 mo. Children under 24 mo (n = 180) were enrolled after exclusion of severe illnesses or known neurodevelopment disorders. The index tools included standardized Hindi translations of PEDS and PEDS:DM. The reference tool was Developmental Assessment Scale for Indian Infants (DASII). Both were administered by blinded researchers. Parameters of diagnostic accuracy were computed. There were 13 (7.2%) failures in PEDS, 119 (66.1%) in PEDS:DM and 119 (66.1%) in PEDS Combined. DASII identified 3 children with developmental delay. Sensitivity (Sn) [95% CI] of PEDS was 33.3 [0.8-90.6] and Specificity (Sp) 93.2 [88.5-96.5]. The Sn and Sp of both PEDS:DM and PEDS Combined were 100 [29.2-100] and 34.5 [27.5-42.0], respectively. Hindi translations of PEDS, PEDS:DM and PEDS Combined are not suitable for developmental screening of children less than 2 y due to suboptimal diagnostic accuracy.

Comparison of the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status and Ages and Stages Questionnaire Developmental Screening Tests in a Eurasian Country.

The Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) are developmental screening tools that are commonly used in pediatric practice worldwide. We aimed to compare the screening results of the PEDS and the ASQ in children with a wide range of ages and to evaluate the degree of agreement between the tests across the age groups. The study was conducted with the participation of 327 children aged 3 to 72 months. Participants were administered the PEDS and then the ASQ. Children with known developmental disabilities were included in the study to represent a real-world clinical practice setting and evaluated with a clinical workup. The median age of the children was 35.1 months, with a range of 3 to 72 months. The percentage of children with known developmental disabilities was 16.5%. The actual agreement between the PEDS and ASQ was 74% with a concordance represented by Cohen κ of 0.422 (p < 0.001) in the total sample. Furthermore, the agreement was higher in children aged 25 to 36 months and 37 to 48 months than for the other ages. We compared the clinical features of the ASQ and PEDS across the age groups, and they demonstrated moderate agreement. The present study also showed the performance of the PEDS and suggests that it should certainly be used for developmental screening in routine child health care practice in Eurasia, thus supporting the use of such parent-completed developmental tools that should be encouraged for universal screening.

Preschool Communication: Early Identification of Concerns About Preschool Language Development and Social Participation.

Background: Adverse communication development in preschool children is a risk factor influencing child health and well-being with a negative impact on social participation. Language and social skills develop and maintain human adaptability over the life course. However, the accuracy of detecting language problems in asymptomatic children in primary care needs to be improved. Therefore, it is important to identify concerns about language development as a risk factor for child health. The association between parental and professional caregivers' concerns about language development and the level of preschool social participation was assessed, as well as the possible mediating/moderating effect of the perception of social competence. In addition, validity and predictive value of parental and professional caregivers' concerns about language development were tested.Methods: To identify emerging concerns about development and social participation, a community sample of 341 preschool children was systematically assessed with a comprehensive preventive child health care “toolkit” of instruments, including parent-completed tools like the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and child competence Visual Analog Scales (VAS). At baseline, children were aged 3 years and at follow-up ~4 years.Results: There was a statistically significant association between parental and professional caregivers' concerns about language development and the level of preschool social participation, with a mediating effect of child social competence at the age of 3 years as well as 4 years. Negative predictive value of parental and professional caregiver language concerns at the age of 3 and 4 years were 99 and 97%, respectively. Furthermore, this article showed that while some preschool children grow out of language problems, others may develop them.Conclusion: Short but valid pediatric primary care tools like the PEDS and child competence VAS can support monitoring and early identification of concerns about language development and social competence as a risk factor for preschool social participation. Personalized health care requires continued communication between parents, professional caregivers and preventive child health care about parental and professional caregiver perceptions concerning preschool language development as well as the perception of a child's social competence.

MHealth developmental screening for preschool children in low-income communities.

Children are often only identified with a developmental delay when they enter primary school due to developmental delays hindering academic progress. Detection of at-risk children in low-income communities is typically unavailable due to several challenges. This study validated an mHealth-based developmental screening tool as a potential time- and cost-effective way of delivering services for preschool children. This cross-sectional within-subject study screened 276 preschool children from low-income communities using the mHealth Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) tools. The mHealth PEDS tools' performance was then evaluated by comparing caregiver concerns according to the PEDS tools with results obtained using a reference standard assessment tool, the Vineland-3. The mHealth PEDS tools identified 237 (85.9%) of children at risk of developmental delay compared to 80.1% (n = 221) of children identified with a developmental delay using the Vineland-3. Sensitivity of the PEDS tools was high (92.6%) with low specificity (22.5%) using US standardised criteria. Literacy skills were found to be most delayed, according to the PEDS: DM (89.3%; n = 142) and Vineland-3 (87.1%; n = 134). Low specificity of the prescribed criteria may require the implementation of adapted referral criteria within low socio-economic status (SES) settings. The mHealth PEDS tools may still be valuable for preschool developmental surveillance of children within low SES settings. It is recommended, however, that children who are identified with a developmental concern undergo a second screen to reduce false positives.

Developing a Screening Tool for Young Children Using an Ecological Framework.

Young children from impoverished backgrounds experience high levels of family and environmental stress, adversely impacting developmental functioning. Early identification provides a pathway to solutions, but many children are never assessed. In addition, the child-serving workforce lacks resources and expertise to use traditional measures. Furthermore, existing measures do not account for the substantial influence of a child's ecology. To bridge these gaps, we developed the Neurodevelopmental Ecological Screening Tool (NEST) and conducted a pilot study (n=60) to test its feasibility for use with caregivers of children ages 3-5 in low-resource settings. We developed an item pool across three domains (child, caregiver, environment), vetted it with experts, and conducted cognitive interviewing with parents (n=15) and case managers (n-10). Simultaneously, we built an online, user-friendly delivery platform. We used a one parameter Item Response Model and a Rasch-based Rating Scale Model (RSM) and fit confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models to test for unidimensional and construct validity. The results support the feasibility of screening children from low SES populations within low-resource settings using an ecological perspective and supports the work of child-serving paraprofessionals in identifying and addressing risks in the lives of young children.

Improving assessment of child development: Results of a quality improvement intervention in general practice.

Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) is a validated tool used to assess child development that has not previously been tested in Australian general practice. We examined the effect of a Quality-Improvement intervention in a single general practice in Melbourne, Australia, that aimed to use this tool to improve the documented assessment of child developmental surveillance during vaccination visits. Mixed methods incorporated audits of clinical records of children aged 1-5 years, before and after intervention, written questionnaires and a focus group (informed by the theoretical domains framework and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B model)) with clinical and non-clinical staff. After 6 months, developmental surveillance more than doubled and was documented in more than one in three visits (34.1%). Almost one in five (18.6%) vaccination visits included the PEDS tool. Overall, the tool was positively received with staff expressing high levels of comfort asking parents to complete it (92.8%), increasing development of professional skills (71.4% staff) and confidence (55% clinicians) detecting developmental delays. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcript revealed underlying barriers arising from the practice environment, staff capabilities and motivation. In a whole of practice Quality-Improvement intervention that applied PEDS training and implementation, including the receptionist in the medical team more than doubled documented rates of child developmental surveillance during vaccination visits. Solutions to underlying barriers could be incorporated into a revised training module. Future studies need to test the tool in more methodologically robust studies that include analysis of the outcomes of developmental surveillance.

Comparative Accuracy of Developmental Screening Questionnaires

Universal developmental screening is widely recommended, yet studies of the accuracy of commonly used questionnaires reveal mixed results, and previous comparisons of these questionnaires are hampered by important methodological differences across studies. To compare the accuracy of 3 developmental screening instruments as standardized tests of developmental status. This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study recruited consecutive parents in waiting rooms at 10 pediatric primary care offices in eastern Massachusetts between October 1, 2013, and January 31, 2017. Parents were included if they were sufficiently literate in the English or Spanish language to complete a packet of screening questionnaires and if their child was of eligible age. Parents completed all questionnaires in counterbalanced order. Participants who screened positive on any questionnaire plus 10% of those who screened negative on all questionnaires (chosen at random) were invited to complete developmental testing. Analyses were weighted for sampling and nonresponse and were conducted from October 1, 2013, to January 31, 2017. The 3 screening instruments used were the Ages & Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3); Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS); and Survey of Well-being of Young Children (SWYC): Milestones. Reference tests administered were Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition, for children aged 0 to 42 months, and Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition, for older children. Age-standardized scores were used as indicators of mild (80-89), moderate (70-79), or severe (<70) delays. A total of 1495 families of children aged 9 months to 5.5 years participated. The mean (SD) age of the children at enrollment was 2.6 (1.3) years, and 779 (52.1%) were male. Parent respondents were primarily female (1325 [88.7%]), with a mean (SD) age of 33.4 (6.3) years. Of the 20.5% to 29.0% of children with a positive score on each questionnaire, 35% to 60% also received a positive score on a second questionnaire, demonstrating moderate co-occurrence. Among younger children (<42 months), the specificity of the ASQ-3 (89.4%; 95% CI, 85.9%-92.1%) and SWYC Milestones (89.0%; 95% CI, 86.1%-91.4%) was higher than that of the PEDS (79.6%; 95% CI, 75.7%-83.1%; P < .001 and P = .002, respectively), but differences in sensitivity were not statistically significant. Among older children (43-66 months), specificity of the ASQ-3 (92.1%; 95% CI, 85.1%-95.9%) was higher than that of the SWYC Milestones (70.7%; 95% CI, 60.9%-78.8%) and the PEDS (73.7%; 95% CI, 64.3%-81.3%; P < .001), but sensitivity to mild delays of the SWYC Milestones (54.8%; 95% CI, 38.1%-70.4%) and of the PEDS (61.8%; 95% CI, 43.1%-77.5%) was higher than that of the ASQ-3 (23.5%; 95% CI, 9.0%-48.8%; P = .012 and P = .002, respectively). Sensitivity exceeded 70% only with respect to severe delays, with 73.7% (95% CI, 50.1%-88.6%) for the SWYC Milestones among younger children, 78.9% (95% CI, 55.4%-91.9%) for the PEDS among younger children, and 77.8% (95% CI, 41.8%-94.5%) for the PEDS among older children. Attending to parents' concerns was associated with increased sensitivity of all questionnaires. This study found that 3 frequently used screening questionnaires offer adequate specificity but modest sensitivity for detecting developmental delays among children aged 9 months to 5 years. The results suggest that trade-offs in sensitivity and specificity occurred among the questionnaires, with no one questionnaire emerging superior overall.