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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |