Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2026
Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers
Published on: March 14, 2018
Validity and reliability of a structured interview for early detection and risk assessment of parenting and
Henk F van Stel1, Ingrid I E Staal, Jo M A Hermanns
1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. h.vanstel@umcutrecht.nl
Insights
The Structured Problem Analysis of Raising Kids (SPARK) tool reliably identifies children at risk for parenting and developmental issues. Further research is needed to enhance its validity across diverse populations.
Area of Science:
- Child Health
- Developmental Psychology
- Preventive Medicine
Background:
- Preventive child health care is crucial for early detection of parenting and developmental challenges.
- Existing instruments lack comprehensive assessment of both child and environment for younger age groups.
- The Structured Problem Analysis of Raising Kids (SPARK) was developed as a broad-scope interview for this purpose.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPARK, a novel interview for early detection of parenting and developmental problems.
- To assess the reliability and validity of the SPARK in a young child population.
- To examine user satisfaction with the SPARK among parents and child health care nurses.
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional study involving 2012 18-month-old children in the Netherlands.
- Inter-rater reliability assessed on 67 children; convergent and discriminant validity examined using self-report questionnaires and socio-economic status comparisons.
- User experience gathered via an online survey for parents and nurses.
Main Results:
- High response rate (92.1%) for the SPARK interview.
- Good to excellent inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlations 0.61–1.0).
- Good discriminative validity, but unexpectedly low convergent validity (correlations ≤0.3). Users reported satisfaction with SPARK.
Conclusions:
- The SPARK reliably discriminates between children at high, increased, and low risk for parenting and developmental problems.
- The instrument demonstrates good discriminative validity and user satisfaction.
- Further research is recommended to explore validity in different populations and refine the instrument.
Background:
Preventive child health care is well suited for the early detection of parenting and developmental problems. However, as far as the younger age group is concerned, there are no validated early detection instruments which cover both the child and its environment. Therefore, we have developed a broad-scope structured interview which assesses parents' concerns and their need for support, using both the parental perspective and the experience of the child health care nurse: the Structured Problem Analysis of Raising Kids (SPARK). This study reports the psychometric characteristics of the SPARK.
Method:
A cross-sectional study of 2012 18-month-old children, living in Zeeland, a province of the Netherlands. Inter-rater reliability was assessed in 67 children. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing SPARK-domains with domains in self-report questionnaires on child development and parenting stress. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing different outcomes of the SPARK between groups with different levels of socio-economic status and by performing an extreme-groups comparison. The user experience of both parents and nurses was assessed with the aid of an online survey.
Results:
The response rate was 92.1% for the SPARK. Self-report questionnaires were returned in the case of 66.9% of the remaining 1721 children. There was selective non-reporting: 33.1% of the questionnaires were not returned, covering 65.2% of the children with a high-risk label according to the SPARK (p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was good to excellent with intraclass correlations between 0.85 and 1.0 for physical topics; between 0.61 and 0.8 for social-emotional topics and 0.92 for the overall risk assessment. Convergent validity was unexpectedly low (all correlations ≤0.3) although the pattern was as expected. Discriminative validity was good. Users were satisfied with the SPARK and identified some topics for improvement.
Conclusion:
The SPARK discriminates between children with a high, increased and low risk of parenting and developmental problems. It does so in a reliable way, but more research is needed on aspects of validity and in other populations.
