Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32065615›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2020

Comparative Accuracy of Developmental Screening Questionnaires.

R Christopher Sheldrick, Susan Marakovitz, Daryl Garfinkel, Alice S Carter, Ellen C Perrin

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

R Christopher SheldrickDepartment of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Susan MarakovitzFloating Hospital for Children, Division of Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine and Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Daryl GarfinkelFloating Hospital for Children, Division of Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine and Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alice S CarterDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Ellen C PerrinFloating Hospital for Children, Division of Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine and Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tufts Children's Hospital · USBoston University · USTufts University · USUniversity of Massachusetts Boston · US

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness of Developmental-Behavioral Screening InstrumentsR01HD072778 · NICHD · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI PERRIN, ELLEN · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD072778
6 · The paper itself

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

ChildChild DevelopmentChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDevelopmental DisabilitiesDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansInfantMaleMass ScreeningPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32065615
PMCPMC7042946
OpenAlexW3006199827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.