Cargando…

Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a method of evaluating accuracy of developmental screening modeled on the evidence-based medical literature. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed on 418 children screened with the Denver II by a trained technician. Two models for analyzing screening data were examin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dawson, Peter, Camp, Bonnie W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712749/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26770755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312114562579
_version_ 1782410107194179584
author Dawson, Peter
Camp, Bonnie W
author_facet Dawson, Peter
Camp, Bonnie W
author_sort Dawson, Peter
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a method of evaluating accuracy of developmental screening modeled on the evidence-based medical literature. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed on 418 children screened with the Denver II by a trained technician. Two models for analyzing screening data were examined, using predictive values and likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−). RESULTS: The technician, working at 20% time, screened 44% of eligible children. There were 129/418 (31%) children with Suspect Denver II results, 115/418 who were referred, 81/115 (70%) who were evaluated by Early Intervention, and 64/81 (79%) who qualified for services. The uncorrected positive predictive value for the Denver II alone (44%) was insufficient to meet the preset standard of 60%, but the LR+ of 4.16 indicated a significant contribution of test information to improving predictive value. Combining test results with information from the parent–technician conference to achieve a referral decision resulted in an uncorrected predictive value of 56%, which rose with correction for children referred but not evaluated to 72% (LR+ 10.33). Negative predictive values and likelihood ratios of a negative test and a non-referral decision achieved recommended levels. Parents who expressed concern were significantly more likely to complete recommended evaluation than those who did not (82% vs 58%, p < .01). Results were in the same range as in published studies with other screening tests but showed three areas for improvement: screening more children, more carefully supervising some referral decisions, and getting more children to evaluation. CONCLUSION: Levels of predictive accuracy above 60% can be obtained by combining different types of information about development to make decisions about referral for more complete evaluation. Systematic study of such combinations could lead to improved predictive accuracy of screening programs and support attempts to close the gap between referral and evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4712749
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47127492016-01-14 Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice Dawson, Peter Camp, Bonnie W SAGE Open Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a method of evaluating accuracy of developmental screening modeled on the evidence-based medical literature. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed on 418 children screened with the Denver II by a trained technician. Two models for analyzing screening data were examined, using predictive values and likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−). RESULTS: The technician, working at 20% time, screened 44% of eligible children. There were 129/418 (31%) children with Suspect Denver II results, 115/418 who were referred, 81/115 (70%) who were evaluated by Early Intervention, and 64/81 (79%) who qualified for services. The uncorrected positive predictive value for the Denver II alone (44%) was insufficient to meet the preset standard of 60%, but the LR+ of 4.16 indicated a significant contribution of test information to improving predictive value. Combining test results with information from the parent–technician conference to achieve a referral decision resulted in an uncorrected predictive value of 56%, which rose with correction for children referred but not evaluated to 72% (LR+ 10.33). Negative predictive values and likelihood ratios of a negative test and a non-referral decision achieved recommended levels. Parents who expressed concern were significantly more likely to complete recommended evaluation than those who did not (82% vs 58%, p < .01). Results were in the same range as in published studies with other screening tests but showed three areas for improvement: screening more children, more carefully supervising some referral decisions, and getting more children to evaluation. CONCLUSION: Levels of predictive accuracy above 60% can be obtained by combining different types of information about development to make decisions about referral for more complete evaluation. Systematic study of such combinations could lead to improved predictive accuracy of screening programs and support attempts to close the gap between referral and evaluation. SAGE Publications 2014-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4712749/ /pubmed/26770755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312114562579 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
spellingShingle Original Article
Dawson, Peter
Camp, Bonnie W
Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
title Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
title_full Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
title_fullStr Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
title_short Evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
title_sort evaluating developmental screening in clinical practice
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712749/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26770755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312114562579
work_keys_str_mv AT dawsonpeter evaluatingdevelopmentalscreeninginclinicalpractice
AT campbonniew evaluatingdevelopmentalscreeninginclinicalpractice