Main Article Content
Background Early detection of development disorder is an effort to recognize disorders in every developmental stage. Parents’ concern can be helpful in identifying children in need of assessment and can be used as a prescreening test to reduce the number of children who require formal screening.
Objective To examine diagnostic value of parents’ evaluation of developmental status (PEDS) instrument in order to determine developmental disorders in infant.
Methods One hundred and seventy infants, 3-12 months old who visited Pediatric Outpatient Clinic were recruited. The parents filled in the PEDS questionnaire and the results were compared with those of Bayley Scales of Infant Development Second Edition (BSID-II) as a gold standard. The diagnostic properties of PEDS were then calculated.
Results PEDS showed a sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI 67.8 to 93.8), a specificity of 81.3% (95% CI 74.2 to 87.1), a positive predictive value of 50.0% (95% CI 40.6 to 59.4), a negative predictive value of 95.8% (95% CI 91.2 to 98.0), a likelihood ratio positive of 4.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 6.6), a likelihood ratio negative of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4), a pre-test probability of 18.2% and a post-test probability of 49.9% (95% CI 40.6 to 59.3).
Conclusion PEDS can be used as an initial screening test to detect developmental disorders in 3-12 month infants. [Paediatr Indones. 2010;50:6-10].
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
2. Glascoe FP. Early detection of developmental and behavioral problems. Pediatr Rev. 2000;21:272-80.
3. Alisjahbana EM. Asuhan dini tumbuh kembang anak. In: Siswanto MT, editor. Simposium penatalaksanaan mutakhir bidang ilmu kesehatan anak untuk mencapai tumbuh kembang optimal; 2000 Jul 21-22; Bandung: Indonesian Pediatric Society, West Java branch; 2000.
4. Committe on Children with Disabilities. Developmental surveillance and screening of infant and young children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:192-5.
5. Glascoe FP. Developmental screening. In: Parker S, Zuckerman B, editors. Behavioral and developmental pediatrics a handbook for primary care. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995; p. 25-9.
6. Glascoe FP. The value of parents’ concerns to detect and address developmental and behavioral problems. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35:1-8.
7. Glascoe FP. Evidence-based approach to developmental and behavioral surveillance using parents’ concerns. Child Care Health Dev. 2000;26:137-49.
8. Glascoe FP. Using parents’ concerns to detect and address developmental and behavioral problems. J Soc Pediatr Nurs. 1999; 4:24-35.
9. Lemeshow S, Hosmer Jr DW, Klar J, Lwanga SK. Adequacy of sample size in health studies. Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons; 1990.
10. Glascoe FP. Can clinical judgment detect children with speech language problems? Pediatrics. 1991;87:317-22.
11. Glascoe FP. Parents’ concerns about children’s development: prescreening or screening test? Pediatrics. 1997;99:522-8.
12. Pritchard MA, Colditz PB, Beller EM. Parents’ evaluation of developmental status in children born with a birth weight of 1250 g or less. J Paediatr Child Health. 2005;41:191-6.
13. Sonnander K. Early identification of children with developmental disabilities. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2000;434:17-23.
14. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB . Evidence-based medicine how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000; p. 67-93.