This page includes the following topics and synonyms: Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire II, R-DPDQ. Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire II (Denver PDQ II) Is based on sound research Is quick and easy to administer and score Is a parent. The Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire (PDQ), a parent- answered questionnaire, has been revised to extend the age of children who can be.
| Author: | Fenrizragore Jular |
| Country: | Philippines |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Software |
| Published (Last): | 4 August 2013 |
| Pages: | 223 |
| PDF File Size: | 20.66 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 2.24 Mb |
| ISBN: | 351-5-53813-439-6 |
| Downloads: | 73859 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Shaktill |
Revision of Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire. Denver developmental screening test: Cultural variations in Southeast Asian children. The newly abbreviated and revised Denver developmental screening test.
The revised Denver Developmental Screening Test: Its predcreening as a screening instrument. Knowledge-based DSS for construction contractor prescreening. The color of denver haze. Gardner Denver restructures operations. Revision of Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire The Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire PDQa parentanswered questionnaire, has been revised to extend the a g e of questionnairee who can be screened to those from 6 years down to birth, to make the test items more challenging for children and more informative for parents, and to make it easier for professionals to c o m p a r e a child’s performance with Denver Denvef Screening Test DDST norms.
Test-retest reliability over 4 week was Deenver field test of the R-PDQ, conducted in a variety of settings with children, revealed that suspect scores on first-stage screening varied with the setting, from Parents found the R-PDQ interesting and easy to complete; health professionals found it e c o n o m devslopmental c a l and easy to interpret. We recommend that the R-PDQ be coupled with a brief developmental examination, and that the R-PDQ be used in busy office settings and community mass screening programs.
Fandal, a n d Susan M. From the Departments of Pediatrics developmentwl Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver The American Academy of Pediatrics, in its “Guidelines for Child Health Maintenance,”1 has formally recognized the importance of early diagnosis and treatment of children with developmental delays and has prescreenjng a two-step approach to identifying and assessing these children.
The first step consists of parent report and an examination of the child. In such a two-step screening process, the first step is designed to identify most, if not all, individuals with the problem. The purpose of the second step is to continue to identify most individuals with the problem while decreasing the number ofI overreferrals. In any practical two-step screen, the first Submitted for publication June 5, ; accepted Nov.
Denver Developmental Screening Tests
The second step screen will be more expensive and time consuming, yet must be within acceptable limits of potential users. If the screens are not acceptable, the potential users will either not use them questionnairre will modify them for use in other than the intended way.
Vocalizes Not Crying Does your child make sounds other than crying, such as gurgling, cooing, or babbling?
Smiles Responsively When you smile and talk to your baby, does s he smile back at you? Grasps Rattle It is important that you follow instructions carefully.
DO n o t place the pencil in the palm of your child’s hand. When you touch the pencil to the back or tips of deve,opmental baby’s fingers, does your baby grasp the pencil for a few prescreenning Interviews with a dozen pediatric practitioners revealed that the 10 PDQ questions were too simple for some children, and that answering only the 10 prescribed questions did not enable parents to determine how far their children had progressed developmentally.
In addition, clinicians wished for a simple way to compare the development of individual children with a larger sample of children, much as they compare weight and height with norms on growth charts.
Inasmuch as the clinicians’ concerns did not pertain questionnaiee the validity of the PDQ but only to its ease of administration and interpretation, no comparison between the PDQ and the revised PDQ for validity was considered. Step 1 was to arrange the questions to be more age-appropriate. This permitted the screening of infants from birth to 3 months, an age group not included in the original PDQ. Step 2 was denvre make the test more challenging.
Instead of answering 10 questions, as on the original PDQ, parents were instructed to continue answering R-PDQ qeustionnaire until they recorded a total of three “No” answers. Step 3 was to simplify parental choices in scoring. The rationale for this change is that the screen’s purpose is to determine if a child can or cannot do a task, not to answer why ‘a prescreenin is unable to do the task e. This was done to enable clinicians and parents to compare a given child’s developmental status, with that of other children of the same age.
The Figure shows one page of the revised, four-page test form, including information for the clinician. Up dsnver 24 months, R-PDQ ages are expressed in months and weeks; thereafter, they are expressed in years and months.
When a delay prescreeming identified, the clinician should emphasize it by circling the R-PDQ age in parentheses. Field testing, The R-PDQ was field tested in the Denver metropolitan area with pairs of caretakers and children in six private pediatric offices, one Head Start center, the University Hospital Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, and eight urban day care centers Table I.
The R-PDQ was completed by parents in all of the settings except the day care centers, where it was completed by the teachers. The children screened were aged 2 weeks to 6 years.
These children had a variety ‘of R-PDQ scores, ranging from no delays to two or more delays. Of the children receiving both tests, had no delays, 73 had one developmentxl, and 36 had two or more rpescreening Table II.
For this study, R-PDQ scores of one or more delays have been considered suspect first-step screening results. Revised PDQ test-retest stability data were collected for 51 children.
Twenty-six parents in one of the private pediatric settings were asked to complete the first R-PDQ during a routine office visit; they were given a second form questiobnaire complete 1 week later and were asked to return it to the office by mail. Teachers in two of the day care centers completed R-PDQs for 25 children in their classes, and a second form for the same children 1 week later.
In both settings, all disagreements between the first and second tests were in the direction of fewer delays on the rescreen. To determine parent-teacher agreement on the R-PDQ, parents of 71 children who attended four day care centers were asked to complete questionnaires for their children.
Five parents rated their children as having more delays than did the teachers, and seven rated their children as having fewer delays. The percentage of suspect R-PDQ scores one or more delays ranged from a low of Acceptance by professionals qiestionnaire parents. No formal evaluation of professional and parental acceptance of the R-PDQ was performed. Instead, the 23 physicians and Head Start and day care directors who participated in the study were interviewed, using an open-ended questionnaire.
The professionals reported that debelopmental gave them an objective way to monitor and document the developmental progress of their patients, and that it gave the parents something to do while waiting for the physician. Eight of the 12 physicians commented that they saw the R-PDQ as taking the place of the developmental history they already routinely conduct with parents.
The physicians estimated that 10 minutes were required for parents to complete the R-PDQ, and 3 minutes for professional staff interpretation.
Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire II – ppt download
Physicians in all six of the private pediatric practices in the field test plan to continue using the R-PDQ. Program directors reported that parents liked the revised test for three main reasons: The purpose of the second-step screen questionnaore to reduce the number of overreferrals, or false positives, that require follow-up.
The focus devepopmental a study designing a two-step screen is to maximize agreement in identifying the positives between the first and second screen while keeping the first screen relatively quick, simple, and economic.
This recommendation was based on the excessive number of underreferrals found during the PDQ validation study, when parents were given no assistance in completing the questionnaire and health providers were not encouraged to discuss the result with developmetnal child.
However, a subsequent study by Rosenbaum et al?
The only child with abnormal DDST results who did not have a suspect R-PDQ score was a child whose mother readily discussed the “special education kindergarten” her child attended when the DDST results were shared with her. This experience supports the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that parental report be complemented with an examination of the child.
A brief examination of all children, regardless of family SES, will minimize false negative results on first-step screening. Rescreen with R-PDQ after 1 month. If one or more delays on rescreening, refer for DDST. Refer for DDST as soon as possible.
It is recommended that one apparent delay be clarified with the parent to assure that the child is actually delayed on that task. In addition, it is suggested that parents of children receiving a score of no delays o r one delay on initial screening be given suggestions as to what they might do to promote their child’s development. To make it possible for practitioners and program directors to plan the time and cost of screening in develo;mental particular setting, the number and percentage of children with no delays, one delay, and two or more delays was determined.
Because the prevalerice of developmental problems is known to vary with social class far more than with race, we determined the rate for children seen quesitonnaire three diverse settings: Part of the explanation of the lower prevalence of deviant scores in the pediatricians’ offices may be related to differences in SES. Administration in a variety of settings suggests that it is an economical, simple, and practical first-step screen when reviewed by precreening professional and when followed prsecreening the DDST.
The number of children with suspect results on the test varies prescreeinng the setting in which it is used, and selection of criteria for follow-up testing one delay versus two or more presdreening vary based on availability of follow-up in a given setting. We thank Marlin Cohrs of the John Developmehtal. Management of pediatric practice. Comparison of a screening test and a reference test in epidemiological studies.
Am J Epidemiol ; Applicability of the Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire in a low-income population.