Validity of the Revised Denver Developmental Screening Test for Referred and Nonreferred Samples

Abstract

The Revised Denver Developmental Screening Test was compared with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development to investigate the validity of the Denver scale for children under 30 mo. of age. Two groups of infants were studied, referred and nonreferred samples. Correlations of .25 to .52 were obtained between the two measures on the basis of developmental quotients which are significantly lower than those previously reported as mental age estimates. Generally the Denver scale appears to be a conservative test in terms of its classifications, and there is a marked underselection by the Denver test of children who receive abnormal scores on the Bayley scales. There is, however, congruence between the Denver Developmental Quotient and the Bayley Mental Scale score for children of lower ability. While two Denver mental age estimates (personal-social and gross motor) appear congruent with the Bayley? Mental Scale age equivalent, for the most part the Denver test yields significant underestimates of mental age. Over-all the data offer only limited validational support for the use of the Denver test with infants under 2 1/2 yr. of age.

Predicting School Problems from Preschool Developmental Screening: A Four-Year Follow-Up of the Revised Denver Developmental Screening Test and the Role of Parent Report

“…Reported rates of underidentification range from 22% (Camp et al 1977) to 29% in this study and 48% in results reported by Sturner et al, 1980. Applebaum (1978 reported an underidentification rate of 62% when the criterion measure was a score below 80 on a standardized intelligence test.…”

“…One is again tempted to suggest that these disparate findings are related to the age difference of the children in the two samples. As noted earlier, Applebaum (1978) has suggested that the RDDST overlooks the young child whose developmental performance falls within the borderline range. However, in the data reported by Sturner et al (1982), of the 73 children with school problems, only 38 were identified from Abnormal or Questionable ratings on the RDDST.…”

“…Even at best, however, only 50% of children with school learning problems were identified at the time of screening using either of these methods. One is tempted to argue, as Applebaum (1978) has in the past, that those children identified by the RDDST as &dquo;at risk&dquo; for developmental problems are children who would be readily identified as &dquo;at risk&dquo; by anyone with good clinical and observation skills, without the benefit of any formal screening inventory.…”

Developmental milestones of vertically HIV infected and seroreverters children: follow up of 83 children

“…The CAT/CLAMS seems to fit well for the first 36 months of life. Based on studies comparing CAT/CLAMS with Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID), both have good correlation, as mentioned in the literature 4, 12,15. The DDST has low sensitivity [17][18][19][20][21] but in this study it achieved a good correlation with CAT/CLAMS; probably it was more accurate in our cases because it was assessed by the same Pediatric Neurologist. Our results are in agreement with Greer S et al 22 who showed that a child with an abnormal DDST is likely to have a poor school outcome.…”

Developmental Screening In Early Childhood: The Interaction Of Research And Social Policy

“…However, a review of more than a dozen studies of the DDST calls into que stion the test's validity. Some of these studies were completed by Frankenburg and his colleagues (9, 81), but most were conducted by independent investigators (2,5,6,8,13,29,36,44,62,70,74).…”