Dataset Information

Concurrent validity of the differential ability scales, second edition with the Mullen Scales of Early Learning in young children with and without neurodevelopmental disorders.

ABSTRACT: Estimates of intelligence in young children with neurodevelopmental disorders are critical for making diagnoses, in characterizing symptoms of disorders, and in predicting future outcomes. The limitations of standardized testing for children with developmental delay or cognitive impairment are well known: Tests do not exist that provide developmentally appropriate material along with norms that extend to the lower reaches of ability. Two commonly used and interchanged instruments are the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL), a test of developmental level, and the Differential Ability Scales, second edition (DAS-II), a more traditional cognitive test. We evaluated the correspondence of contemporaneous MSEL and the DAS-II scores in a mixed sample of children aged 2-10 years with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), non-ASD developmental delays, and typically developing children across the full spectrum of cognitive ability. Consistent with published data on the original DAS and the MSEL, scores on the DAS-II and MSEL were highly correlated. However, curve estimation revealed large mean differences that varied as a function of the child's cognitive ability level. We conclude that interchanging MSEL and DAS-II scores without regard to the discrepancy in scores may produce misleading results in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of children with and without ASD, and, thus, this practice should be implemented with caution.

SUBMITTER: Farmer C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5588686 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Concurrent validity of the differential ability scales, second edition with the Mullen Scales of Early Learning in young children with and without neurodevelopmental disorders.

Farmer Cristan C Golden Christine C Thurm Audrey A

Child neuropsychology : a journal on normal and abnormal development in childhood and adolescence 20150401 5

Estimates of intelligence in young children with neurodevelopmental disorders are critical for making diagnoses, in characterizing symptoms of disorders, and in predicting future outcomes. The limitations of standardized testing for children with developmental delay or cognitive impairment are well known: Tests do not exist that provide developmentally appropriate material along with norms that extend to the lower reaches of ability. Two commonly used and interchanged instruments are the Mullen ...[more]

PMID: 25833070

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreterm infants and infants with perinatal brain injury show a higher incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). The Infant Motor Profile (IMP) is a clinical assessment which evaluates the complexity of early motor behaviour. More data are needed to confirm its predictive ability and concurrent validity with other common and valid assessments such as the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Prechtl's General Movement Assessment (GMA). The present study aims to evaluate the concurrent validity of the IMP with the AIMS, to assess its association with the GMA, to evaluate how the IMP reflects the severity of the brain injury and to compare the ability of the IMP and the AIMS to predict an abnormal outcome in 5-month-old infants at risk of NDD.Methods86 infants at risk of NDD were retrospectively recruited among the participants of two clinical trials. Preterm infants with or without perinatal brain injury and term infants with brain injury were assessed at 3 months corrected age (CA) using the GMA and at 5 months CA using the IMP and the AIMS. The neurodevelopmental outcome was established at 18 months.ResultsResults confirm a solid concurrent validity between the IMP Total Score and the AIMS (Spearman's ρ 0.76; p < .001) and a significant association between IMP Total Score and the GMA. Unlike the AIMS, the IMP Total score accurately reflects the severity of neonatal brain injury (p < .001) and proves to be the strongest predictor of NDD (p < .001). The comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) confirms that the IMP Total score has the highest diagnostic accuracy at 5 months (AUC 0.92). For an optimal IMP Total Score cut-off value of 70, the assessment shows high sensitivity (93%) and specificity (81%) (PPV 84%; NPV 90%).ConclusionsEarly motor behaviour assessed with the IMP is strongly associated with middle-term neurodevelopmental outcome. The present study confirms the concurrent validity of the IMP with the AIMS, its association with the GMA and its ability to reflect brain lesion load, hence contributing to the construct validity of the assessment.Trial registrationNCT01990183 and NCT03234959 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Project description:Background: While the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Second Edition (Y-BOCS-II) is the gold-standard for measurement of obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptom severity, its factor structure is still a matter of debate and, most importantly, criterion validity for diagnosis of OC disorder (OCD) has not been tested. This study aimed to clarify factor structure and criterion validity of the Y-BOCS-II. Methods: We first validated and quantified the psychometric properties of a culturally adapted Portuguese translation of the Y-BOCS-II (PY-BOCS-II). The PY-BOCS-II and other psychometric instruments, including the OCD subscale of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV, used to define OCD diagnosis, were administered to 187 participants (52 patients with OCD, 18 with other mood and anxiety disorders and 117 healthy subjects). In a subsample of 20 OCD patients and the 18 patients with other diagnoses, PY-BOCS-II was applied by clinicians blinded to diagnosis. Results: PY-BOCS-II had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.96) and very good test-retest reliability (Pearson's r = 0.94). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with loadings consistent with the Obsessions and Compulsions subscales, and there was good to acceptable convergent and divergent validity. Importantly, the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve suggested elevated accuracy in discriminating between patients with OCD and control subjects (AUC = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.99), that was retained in comparisons with age, gender and education matched controls (AUC = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99), as well as with patients with other mood and anxiety disorders (AUC = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1). Additionally, a cut-off score of 13 had optimal discriminatory ability for the diagnosis of OCD, with sensitivity ranging between 85 and 90%, and specificity between 94 and 97%, respectively when all samples or only the clinical samples were considered. Conclusion: The PY-BOCS-II has excellent psychometric properties to assess the severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, reflecting obsessive, and compulsive dimensions, compatible with currently defined subscales. Furthermore, we found that a cut-off of 13 for the Y-BOCS-II total score has good to excellent sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of OCD.

Project description:Background: There are no data on the precise burden of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) in Africa, despite high incidence of risk factors. Ten Questions Questionnaire (TQQ) has been used extensively in Africa to screen neurological impairments but not autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD). The Neurodevelopmental Screening Tool (NDST) has reliably assessed NDD in Asia; its validity in Africa is unknown. Methods: Using NDST and TQQ, we screened 11,223 children aged 6-9 years in Kilifi, Kenya. We invited all screen-positives and a proportion of screen-negative children for confirmatory diagnosis of NDD using clinical history, neuropsychological assessments and interviews. Results: In total, 2,245 (20%) children screened positive for NDD. Confirmatory testing was completed for 1,564 (69.7%) screen-positive and 598 (6.7%) screen-negative children. NDST's sensitivity was 87.8% (95%CI: 88.3-88.5%) for any NDD, 96.5% (95%CI:96.1-96.8%) ASD and 89.2% (95%CI: 88.7-89.8%) for ADHD. Moderate/severe neurological impairments' sensitivities ranged from 85.7% (95%CI: 85.1-86.3%) for hearing impairments to 100.00% (100.0-100.0%) for motor impairments. NDST had higher sensitivities than TQQ for epilepsy (88.8 vs 86.7), motor impairments (100.0 vs 93.7) and cognitive impairment (88.2 vs 84.3). Sensitivities for visual and hearing impairments were comparable in both tools. NDST specificity was 82.8% (95%CI: 82.1-83.5%) for any NDD, 94.5% (95%CI: 94.0-94.9%) for ASD and 81.7% (95%CI: 81.0-82.4%) for ADHD. The specificities range for neurological impairments was 80.0% (95%CI: 79.3-80.7%) for visual impairments to 93.8% (95%CI: 93.4-94.3%) for epilepsy. Negative predictive values were generally very high (≤100%), but most positive predictive values (PPV) were low (≤17.8%). Domain specific internal consistency ranged from 0.72 (95%CI: 0.70-0.74) for ADHD to 0.89 (95%CI: 0.87-0.90) for epilepsy. Conclusions: NDST possesses high sensitivity and specificity for detecting different domains of NDD in Kilifi. Low PPV suggest that positive diagnoses should be confirmed when samples are drawn from a population with low disease prevalence.

Project description:BackgroundWith the growing number of young-older adults (baby-boomers), there is an increasing demand for assessment tools specific for this population, which are able to detect subtle balance and mobility deficits. Various balance and mobility tests already exist, but suffer from ceiling effects in higher functioning older adults. A reliable and valid challenging balance and mobility test is critical to determine a young-older adult's balance and mobility performance and to timely initiate preventive interventions. The aim was to evaluate the concurrent validity, inter- and intrarater reliability, internal consistency, and ceiling effects of a challenging balance and mobility scale, the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBM), in young-older adults aged 60 to 70 years.MethodsFifty-one participants aged 66.4 ± 2.7 years (range, 60-70 years) were assessed with the CBM. The Fullerton Advanced Balance scale (FAB), 3-Meter Tandem Walk (3MTW), 8-level balance scale, Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), and 7-m habitual gait speed were used to estimate concurrent validity, examined by Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). Inter- and intrarater reliability were calculated as Intra-class-correlations (ICC), and internal consistency by Cronbach alpha and item-total correlations (ρ). Ceiling effects were determined by obtaining the percentage of participants reaching the highest possible score.ResultsThe CBM significantly correlated with the FAB (ρ = 0.75; p < .001), 3MTW errors (ρ = - 0.61; p < .001), 3MTW time (ρ = - 0.35; p = .05), the 8-level balance scale (ρ = 0.35; p < .05), the TUG (ρ = - 0.42; p < .01), and 7-m habitual gait speed (ρ = 0.46, p < .001). Inter- (ICC2,k = 0.97), intrarater reliability (ICC3,k = 1.00) were excellent, and internal consistency (α = 0.88; ρ = 0.28-0.81) was good to satisfactory. The CBM did not show ceiling effects in contrast to other scales.ConclusionsConcurrent validity of the CBM was good when compared to the FAB and moderate to good when compared to other measures of balance and mobility. Based on this study, the CBM can be recommended to measure balance and mobility performance in the specific population of young-older adults.Trial registrationTrial number: ISRCTN37750605 . (Registered on 21/04/2016).

Dataset Information

Concurrent validity of the differential ability scales, second edition with the Mullen Scales of Early Learning in young children with and without neurodevelopmental disorders.

Publications

Concurrent validity of the differential ability scales, second edition with the Mullen Scales of Early Learning in young children with and without neurodevelopmental disorders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets