denver developmental screening test ii pdf converter

The authors concluded that in their program a suspect Denver II should usually result in referral. The authors concluded that a suspect Denver II “should lead to careful monitoring and rescreening unless provider or parental concern suggests the need for immediate referral.” Among children 18–72 months old, the prevalence of abnormality was 0.43 and the positive predictive value of the Denver II was 0.77, negative predictive value of 0.89, sensitivity 0.86, and specificity of 0.81. The study showed the value of taking into account other information besides the test result because the screener increased the predictive value from 44% to 56% by using her judgment not to refer some children with minor delays. The predictive value was 56% allowing for children who were referred but not evaluated, it was 72% this compared favorably with two studies using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire in clinics, which found comparable predictive values of 50% and 38%. The success of the screening program was judged in terms of predictive value: the probability that a child, if referred, would be eligible for services. This study included 418 children in all and 64 who needed EI. Here the criterion for abnormality was the eligibility of children for Early Intervention, according to the judgment of speech-language pathologists and other professionals in two suburban school districts. Materials may no longer be purchased in hard copy, but they are available at no charge from Denver Developmental Materials, Another study evaluated the Denver II in the screening program of a community health center.

In 2006 the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Children with Disabilities Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics published a list of screening tests for clinicians to consider when selecting a test to use in their practice. Frankenburg did not recommend criteria for referral rather, he recommended that screening programs and communities review their results and decide whether they are satisfied (Technical Manual, pp. 20–22). Such factors could include the parents’ education and opinions, the child’s health, family history, and available services. Frankenburg, likened it to a growth chart of height and weight and encouraged users to consider factors other than test results in working with an individual child.

Interpretation The author of the test, William K. Separate norms were provided for the 16 items whose scores varied by race, maternal education, or rural-urban residence. Significant differences were defined as differences of more than 10% in the age at which 90% of children could perform any given item (Technical Manual, pp. 6, 18-19).

Denver developmental screening test ii pdf converter