Sensitivity and specificity of a low-cost screening protocol for identifying children at risk for language disorders

Dias, Daniela Cardilli; Rondon-Melo, Silmara; Molini-Avejonas, Daniela Regina

doi:10.6061/clinics/2020/e1426

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After further review and application of selection criteria, 18 articles were selected for inclusion in study. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] A PRISMA flow diagram has been prepared to illustrate the study selection process (as shown in figure 1).…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the 18 studies included for qualitative synthesis were original articles published in English, with a publication date range from 1991 to 2020 inclusive. Eight studies originated in ‘South Asia’, 38 41 44 46 48 51 54 55 four from ‘East Asia and Pacific’, 39 47 49 50 three from ‘sub-Saharan Africa’, 45 52 53 one study each from the ‘Middle East and North Africa’, 43 ‘Latin America and Caribbean’ 40 and ‘Europe and Central Asia’ 42 region of the World Bank. In total, 16 developmental screening tools were used in 10 countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ASHA found to have excellent sensitivity and specificity (82.5% and 98.93%, respectively) against ABFW Child Language Test. 40 The authors recommended to adapt the instrument for bilingual children as well as validating it in larger sample size.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 49 50 52–55 Secondarily, there was a lack of standard proxy measures to define the screen-positive cases. Currently available examples of proxy measures are as follows: overall scores, 38 39 number of negative answers, 40 number of milestones, 42 number of items, 44 54 number of functional domains, 51 number of significant concerns 49 50 and so on. These two factors together, often make the screening results incomprehensible to health professionals who are not familiar with the tool in question.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo systematically review, identify and report the screening tools used for early identification of developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesFour bibliographic databases: Medline (1946 to 13 July 2020), Embase (1974 to 13 July 2020), Scopus (1823 to 11 July 2020) and PsycINFO (1987 to July week 1 2020).Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed original articles published in English addressing validated culturally sensitive developmental screening tools among children aged <5 years were included in this review.Data extraction and synthesisOne author (CK, medical librarian) developed the search strategy. Three authors conducted the database search (phase I: CK; phase II: IJ and MKI). Three authors (TF, IJ and MKI) independently screened the title and abstracts. TF, MKI and GK independently performed the full-text review of the screened articles. During each step of the study selection process, disagreements were resolved through discussion. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to guide the systematic review. Data extraction and analysis were performed using MS Excel. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the study findings.ResultsWe identified 3349 articles, of which 18 studies from 10 countries, reporting 16 screening tools, were selected for qualitative synthesis. Six cultural contexts were explored. Twelve general, two motor and two speech-language tools were identified. Seven of them found to be parent-completed ones. Five screening tools (American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, Guide for Monitoring Child Development, Infant Neurological International Battery, New Delhi-Development Screening Questionnaire and Woodside Screening Technique) reported relatively higher sensitivity (82.5%–100%) and specificity (83%–98.93%).ConclusionsLimited number of culturally sensitive developmental screening tools were validated for children aged <5 years in low- and middle-income countries. Revising existing screening tools in different ethnic and cultural settings and subsequent validation with normative value should be a research priority.

show abstract

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Receiver operating characteristic analysis results indicated that CARE is a satisfactory tool for screening diagnostics and might help to build a quantitative index for better and faster classification of an “At risk” status in children aged 24–59 months. Our data offers complete diagnostic performance for a screening tool, surpassing the limitations of other tools designed and developed in LMIC ( Faruk et al, 2020 ), such as the Child Language Test in Phonology, Vocabulary, Fluency and Pragmatics (ABFW), the Developmental Assessment Scales for Indian Infants (DASII), and the Rapid Neurodevelopmental Assessment (RNDA; Juneja et al, 2012 ; Khan et al, 2013 ; Dias et al, 2020 ). There is no ROC analysis of ABFW, DASII or RNDA to compare with our data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Agreement and Reliability of Parental Reports and Direct Screening of Developmental Outcomes in Toddlers at Risk

Giraldo-Huertas

Schafer

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental screening is a practice that directly benefits vulnerable and low-income families and children when it is regular and frequently applied. A developmental screening tool administered by parents called CARE is tested. CARE contains a compilation of activities to report and enhance development at home. Hundred and fifty-seven families in Bogotá (Colombia) initially responded to a call to participate in developmental screening tools’ validation and reliability study. All children (Average: 42.7 months old; SD: 9.4; Min: 24, Max: 58) were screened directly by trained applicants using a Spanish version of the Denver Developmental Screening test [i.e., the Haizea-Llevant (HLL) screening table]. After a first screening, 61 dyads were positive for follow-up and received a second HLL screening. Fifty-two out of 61 dyads use and returned CARE booklet after 1-month screening at home. The comparative analysis for parent reports using CARE and direct screening observation included (a) the effects of demographic variables on overall and agreement, (b) agreement and congruence between the CARE report classification and direct screening classification (“At risk” or “Not at risk”), (c) receiver operating characteristic analysis, (d) item-Level agreement for specific developmental domains, and (e) acceptability and feasibility analysis. Results and conclusions show the parental report using the CARE booklet as a reliable screening tool that has the potential to activate alerts for an early cognitive delay that reassure clinicians and families to further specialized and controlled developmental evaluations and act as a screen for the presence of such delay in four developmental dimensions.

show abstract

The home language environment and early childhood development: a LENA study from rural and peri-urban China

Zhang,

Liu,

Pappas

et al. 2023

Applied Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensitivity and specificity of a low-cost screening protocol for identifying children at risk for language disorders

Cited by 8 publications

References 34 publications

Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Agreement and Reliability of Parental Reports and Direct Screening of Developmental Outcomes in Toddlers at Risk

The home language environment and early childhood development: a LENA study from rural and peri-urban China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About