ArticleJAMA pediatrics2020
Comparative Accuracy of Developmental Screening Questionnaires.
Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Validity of Developmental Screening Questionnaires for Identifying Children With Later Cognitive or Educational Difficulties: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Developmental Surveillance and Autism Screening in an Australian Multicultural Cohort: The Watch Me Grow Study.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Developmental Trajectories in Young Autistic Children Receiving Parent-Mediated Intervention Through In-Person and Telehealth Service Delivery Models: A Naturalistic, Nonrandomized Clinical Study.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Multisensory Early Oral Administration of Human Milk (M-MILK) for Very Preterm Infants: Enhancing Stress Regulation, Neurodevelopment, and Oral Feeding Skills.Biological research for nursing · 2026Article
- Educator-Led Screening to Identify 4-Year-Old Children At-Risk of Motor Delay: A Mixed Methods Convergent Study.Child: care, health and development · 2026Article
- Improving the accuracy of fetal growth restriction diagnosis by integrating fetal genetic growth potential: a proof of concept study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Measuring child development at the 2-2½-year health and development review in England: a rapid scoping review of available tools.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Impact of maternal stress and COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy on offspring neurodevelopment: signature cohort 12 month follow-up.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Intelligent monitoring-based screen exposure patterns and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preschool children.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- ASQ-3 developmental outcomes at six months in a Bulgarian infant cohort: a cross-cultural comparison with U.S. norms.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Effects of formal aquatic activities on health and developmental outcomes in infants and toddlers younger than 36 months: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- The effectiveness of Parenthood-Centred Psychotherapy on perinatal maternal depressive-anxiety symptoms and child development in a disadvantaged population.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Effect of gestational diabetes on neurodevelopment outcome of the offsprings- Ma'an shan birth cohort study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Statistical flashpoints in the development and validation of a developmental delay screening tool.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025Article
- Bringing developmental assessment to the 21st century: The NIH Baby Toolbox.Infant behavior & development · 2025Article
- Developmental screening at 18 months using the Nipissing District Developmental Screen.Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Infant gut microbiota and SCFAs mediate the association between early-life human milk microbiota and neurodevelopment.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- Brief multidimensional screening tools for young children's mental health and development for administration by primary care providers: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Helping kids through early developmental screening.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Prenatal exposure to psychotropics and analgesics on cognitive, linguistic and educational outcomes - a scoping review with focus on validity and reliability of outcome measures.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: 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. Objective: To compare the accuracy of 3 developmental screening instruments as standardized tests of developmental status. Design, Setting, and Participants: 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. Exposures: 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions and Relevance: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.