Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26983782›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2016

Evaluation of the revised Nipissing District Developmental Screening (NDDS) tool for use in general population samples of infants and children.

John Cairney, Jean Clinton, Scott Veldhuizen, Christine Rodriguez, Cheryl Missiuna, Terrance Wade, Peter Szatmari, Marilyn Kertoy

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Interim schedule for pregnant women and children during the COVID-19 pandemic.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Recommendations on screening for developmental delay.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2016
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John CairneyDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 109A, Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A1, Canada. cairnej@mcmaster.ca.
Jean ClintonOfford Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Scott VeldhuizenDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 109A, Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A1, Canada.
Christine RodriguezDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 109A, Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A1, Canada.
Cheryl MissiunaCanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Terrance WadeDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada.
Peter SzatmariDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marilyn KertoySchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is widespread interest in identification of developmental delay in the first six years of life. This requires, however, a reliable and valid measure for screening. In Ontario, the 18-month enhanced well-baby visit includes province-wide administration of a parent-reported survey, the Nipissing District Developmental Screening (NDDS) tool, to facilitate early identification of delay. Yet, at present the psychometric properties of the NDDS are largely unknown.

method812 children and their families were recruited from the community. Parents (most often mothers) completed the NDDS. A sub-sample (n = 111) of parents completed the NDDS again within a two-week period to assess test-retest reliability. For children 3 or younger, the criterion measure was the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd edition; for older children, a battery of other measures was used. All criterion measures were administered by trained assessors. Mild and severe delays were identified based on both published cut-points and on the distribution of raw scores. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated to assess agreement between tests.

resultsTest-retest reliability was modest (Spearman's rho = .62, p < 001). Regardless of the age of the child, the definition of delay (mild versus severe), or the cut-point used on the NDDS, sensitivities (from 29 to 68 %) and specificities (from 58 to 88 %) were poor to moderate.

conclusionThe modest test-retest results, coupled with the generally poor observed agreement with criterion measures, suggests the NDDS should not be used on its own for identification of developmental delay in community or population-based settings.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsChildChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInfantMaleParentsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID26983782
PMCPMC4794856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.