Cargando…
The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems
AIM: A little is known about predictive validity of and professionals' adherence to language screening protocols. This study assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children and the effects of protocol deviations by prof...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32585043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apa.15447 |
_version_ | 1783652672315850752 |
---|---|
author | Visser‐Bochane, Margot Luinge, Margreet Dieleman, Liesbeth van der Schans, Cees Reijneveld, Sijmen |
author_facet | Visser‐Bochane, Margot Luinge, Margreet Dieleman, Liesbeth van der Schans, Cees Reijneveld, Sijmen |
author_sort | Visser‐Bochane, Margot |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: A little is known about predictive validity of and professionals' adherence to language screening protocols. This study assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children and the effects of protocol deviations by professionals. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 124 children recruited and tested between October 2013 and December 2015. Children were recruited from four well child clinics in urban and rural areas. To validate the screening, we assessed children's language ability with standardised language tests following the 2‐year screening and 1 year later. We assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the screening and of protocol deviations. RESULTS: At 2 years, the sensitivity and specificity of the language screening were 0.79 and 0.86, and at 3 years 0.82 and 0.74, respectively. Protocol deviations by professionals were rare (7%) and did not significantly affect the validity of the screening. CONCLUSION: The language screening protocol was valid for detecting current and later language problems. Deviations from the protocol by professionals were rare and did not affect the concurrent nor predictive validity of the protocol. The 2‐year language screening supports professionals working in preventive child health care and deserves wider implementation in well child care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7891318 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78913182021-03-02 The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems Visser‐Bochane, Margot Luinge, Margreet Dieleman, Liesbeth van der Schans, Cees Reijneveld, Sijmen Acta Paediatr Regular Articles & Brief Reports AIM: A little is known about predictive validity of and professionals' adherence to language screening protocols. This study assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children and the effects of protocol deviations by professionals. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 124 children recruited and tested between October 2013 and December 2015. Children were recruited from four well child clinics in urban and rural areas. To validate the screening, we assessed children's language ability with standardised language tests following the 2‐year screening and 1 year later. We assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the screening and of protocol deviations. RESULTS: At 2 years, the sensitivity and specificity of the language screening were 0.79 and 0.86, and at 3 years 0.82 and 0.74, respectively. Protocol deviations by professionals were rare (7%) and did not significantly affect the validity of the screening. CONCLUSION: The language screening protocol was valid for detecting current and later language problems. Deviations from the protocol by professionals were rare and did not affect the concurrent nor predictive validity of the protocol. The 2‐year language screening supports professionals working in preventive child health care and deserves wider implementation in well child care. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-07-07 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7891318/ /pubmed/32585043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apa.15447 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Acta Paediatrica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation Acta Paediatrica This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Regular Articles & Brief Reports Visser‐Bochane, Margot Luinge, Margreet Dieleman, Liesbeth van der Schans, Cees Reijneveld, Sijmen The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
title | The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
title_full | The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
title_fullStr | The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
title_full_unstemmed | The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
title_short | The Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
title_sort | dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children was valid for detecting current and later language problems |
topic | Regular Articles & Brief Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32585043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apa.15447 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT visserbochanemargot thedutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT luingemargreet thedutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT dielemanliesbeth thedutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT vanderschanscees thedutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT reijneveldsijmen thedutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT visserbochanemargot dutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT luingemargreet dutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT dielemanliesbeth dutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT vanderschanscees dutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems AT reijneveldsijmen dutchwellchildlanguagescreeningprotocolfor2yearoldchildrenwasvalidfordetectingcurrentandlaterlanguageproblems |