Rizzoli-Córdoba A, Schnaas-Arrieta L, Liendo-Vallejos S, Buenrostro-Márquez G, Romo-Pardo B, Carreón-García J, Valadez-Correa E, Scherer-Ibarra P, López-Aranda V, Lira-Guerra S, Robles-Anaya R, Pizarro-Castellanos M, Briones-Sandoval A, Lia-Pirola M, Muñoz-Hernández O

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 195-208
PDF size: 189.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background. The “Evaluación del Desarrollo Infantil” (Infant Development Evaluation, IDE) test was developed as a screening tool for the developmental evaluation of Mexican children ‹5 years old. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the IDE as a screening tool for children with developmental problems.
Methods. We carried out a cross-sectional study including patients from urban and rural areas in three locations: Mexico City, Yucatan and Chihuahua. The disease spectrum was defined according to biological risk, environmental risk or without risk for developmental problems. Patients with obvious neurological disabilities or genetic syndromes were excluded. The gold standards used were the Battelle Developmental Inventory 2 (BDI-2) (in Spanish) and Bayley-III. Each participant had two complete applications of the IDE test (questionned and observed) and the gold standard (Bayley-III only in Mexico City). Developmental delay was defined as a total development quotient ≤90.
Results. The study included 438 children ‹5 years old. Distribution according to location includes Mexico City (n =152, 34.7%), Yucatan (n =151, 34.5%), and Chihuahua (n =135, 30.8%); female gender (n =190, 43.4%). Classification by risk includes biological (n =197, 45%), environmental (n =137, 31.3%), and without risk (n =104, 23.7%). With the BDI-2 as the gold standard, the modified version of the IDE (questionned + observed) has a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.75-0.86), specificity 0.61 (95% CI: 0.54-0.67), and concordance 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.74). The partial correlation between IDE and Bayley-III areas (n =87) was adjusted by test group: fine motor 0.468, gross motor 0.441, language 0.508, social 0.336 and adaptive 0.355 (p ≤0.001).
Conclusions. The modified version of the IDE has similar properties as the various developmental screening tools available in the U.S. or Latin America and may be a good screening tool in Spanish.

REFERENCES

1. 1. Frankenburg WK, Camp BW, Van Natta PA. Validity of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Child Dev 1971;42:475-485.

2. 2. Glascoe F, Byrne K, Ashford L, Johnson K, Chang B, Strickland B. Accuracy of the Denver-II in developmental screening. Pediatrics 1992;89:1221-1225.

3. 3. Squires J, Bricker D, Potter L. Revision of a parent-completed developmental screening tool: Ages and Stages Questionnaires. J Pediatr Psychol 1997;22:313-328.

4. 4. Gollenberg AL, Lynch CD, Jackson LW, McGuinness BM, Msall ME. Concurrent validity of the parent-completed Ages and Stages Questionnaires, 2nd ed. with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II in a low-risk sample. Child Care Health Dev 2010;36:485-490.

5. 5. Rydz D, Srour M, Oskoui M, Marget N, Shiller M, Birnbaum R, et al. Screening for developmental delay in the setting of a community pediatric clinic: a prospective assessment of parent-report questionnaires. Pediatrics 2006;118:e1178-e1186.

6. 6. Schonhaut L, Salinas P, Armijo I, Schönstedt M, Alvarez J, Manríquez M. Validación de un Cuestionario Autoadministrado para la Evaluación del Desarrollo Psicomotor. Rev Chil Pediatr 2009;80:513-519.

7. 7. Newborg J. Battelle Developmental Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-2). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2004.

8. 8. Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III). Dallas: Pearson; 2005.

9. 9. Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-031-SSA2-1999, para la atención a la salud del niño. Disponible en: http://www.salud.gob.mx/unidades/cdi/nom/031ssa29.html

10. Romo-Pardo B, Liendo-Vallejos S, Vargas-López G, Rizzoli-Córdoba A, Buenrostro-Márquez G. Pruebas de tamizaje de neurodesarrollo global para niños menores de 5 años de edad validadas en Estados Unidos y Latinoamérica: revisión sistemática y análisis comparativo. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2012;69:450-462