4.7 Article

Validation of Rapid Neurodevelopmental Assessment for 2-to 5-Year-Old Children in Bangladesh

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 131, 期 2, 页码 E486-E494

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-2421

关键词

neurodevelopment; impairment; disability; assessment; surveillance

资金

  1. Autism Speaks, United States

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Validate a tool to determine neurodevelopmental impairments (NDIs) in >2- to 5-year-old children in a country with limited child development expertise. METHODS: Rapid Neurodevelopmental Assessment (RNDA) is a tool designed to detect functional status and NDIs across multiple neurodevelopmental domains. Validity was determined in 77 children enrolled by door-to-door sampling in Dhaka and who were administered the RNDA by 1 of 6 testers (4 developmental therapists, 2 special education teachers) and simultaneously administered a test of adaptive behavior (AB; Independent Behavior Assessment Scale) and intelligence quotient (IQ) tests (Bayley Scales of Infant Development II, Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence) by psychologists. RESULTS: Interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent. There were significant differences in AB in mean percentile scores on the Independent Behavior Assessment Scale for motor (P = .0001), socialization (P = .001), communication (P = .001), and full-scale (P = .001) scores in children with >= 1 NDI (any NDI) versus no NDI. Significant differences in those with versus those without any NDI were found on IQ scores. Sensitivity and specificity for significant difficulties (defined as AB z-scores < -2 SDs and/or IQ < 70) and mild difficulties included (AB z-scores < -1SD and/or IQ <85) were 90% and 60% and 80% and 76%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RNDA validity results are promising for use by child care professionals in field and clinical settings, but the tool needs further replication and refinement for assessment of specific impairments of vision, hearing, and seizures. Pediatrics 2013;131:e486-e494

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据