Accuracy of the Denver-II in Developmental Screening

Abstract

One of the oldest and best known developmental screening tests was recently restandardized and revised as the Denver-II. Because it was published without evidence of its accuracy, the present study was undertaken with 104 children between 3 and 72 months of age attending one of five day-care centers. To determine the presence of developmental problems, children were administered individual measures of intelligence, speech-language, achievement, and adaptive behavior. A second psychological examiner, blind to the outcome of the diagnostic battery, administered the Denver-II. Developmental problems including language impairments, learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, and/or functional developmental delay were found in 17% of the children. The Denver-II identified correctly 83% and thus had high rates of sensitivity. However, more than half the children with normal development also received abnormal, questionable, or untestable Denver-II scores. Thus the test had limited specificity (43%) and a high overreferral rate. The alternative scoring method, categorizing questionable/untestable scores as normal, caused sensitivity to drop to 56% although specificity rose to 80%. Since neither scoring method produced acceptable levels of accuracy, an effort was made to locate the sources of accuracy and inaccuracy within the test. Only items in the language domain were modestly helpful in discriminating children with and without difficulties. The findings suggest that the authors of the Denver-II need to engage in further development of the instrument including revising scoring criteria and item placement in relation to children's ages. In the interim, test users should employ screening tests which are more accurate such as the Minnesota Inventories or the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test.

The ASQ and R-PDQ telephone-administered validation within the OTIS antidepressant in pregnancy study.

“…The DDST-II, from which the R-PDQ II was derived, has been criticized for its lack of sensitivity and specificity (Glascoe et al, 1992). However, the R-PDQ’s questions are frequently included in electronic medical record yes/no checklists used in well-child visits.…”

Fetoscopic Laser Ablation for the Selective Fetal Reduction in Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome Stage II–IV: The Experience of a New Fetal Medicine Center

“…Newborns were examined and monitored by a neonatologist at 3–6 months after birth. The mental and motor development of newborns were assessed according to the Denver II test, 23 and the neonatal brain lesions were detected by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).…”

Beyond correlational analysis of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): A classification validity study.

“…Negative predictive power was over 80% for all DIBELS tasks and often over 90%. None of the DIBELS tasks demonstrated positive predictive power at the level regarded as acceptable for screening measures (.70; Glascoe et al, 1992). Other studies (e.g., O'Connor & Jenkins, 1999; Speece, 2005) have found poor positive predictive power but high negative predictive power for early reading screening instruments.…”