Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The Denver Developmental Screening Test: how good is its predictive validity?

S Greer1, H Bauchner, B Zuckerman

  • 1Department of Pediatrics, Boston City Hospital, MA 02118.

Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology
|December 1, 1989
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Discovery and spectroscopy of the young jovian planet 51 Eri b with the Gemini Planet Imager.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2015
Same author

Optimizing real time fMRI neurofeedback for therapeutic discovery and development.

NeuroImage. Clinical·2014
Same author

Rapid disappearance of a warm, dusty circumstellar disk.

Nature·2012
Same author

African ancestry, early life exposures, and respiratory morbidity in early childhood.

Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology·2011
Same author

Images of a fourth planet orbiting HR 8799.

Nature·2010
Same author

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Archives of disease in childhood. Education and practice edition·2008
Same journal

Neuropathic pain in cerebral palsy and related genetic conditions: A scoping review of prevalence, characteristics, and management.

Developmental medicine and child neurology·2026
Same journal

Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination global scores for predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes after 2 years of age: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Developmental medicine and child neurology·2026
Same journal

Seizure worsening and sodium channel blockers in HCN1-related epilepsies: A case series.

Developmental medicine and child neurology·2026
Same journal

What is the impact of childhood-onset disability research - and what should it be?

Developmental medicine and child neurology·2026
Same journal

Sleep disturbances in children with cerebral palsy, their siblings, and parents: A qualitative descriptive study.

Developmental medicine and child neurology·2026
Same journal

Reframing early socio-emotional risk in infants at high risk of cerebral palsy beyond motor outcomes.

Developmental medicine and child neurology·2026
See all related articles

The Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) shows high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting school outcomes for children over three. Many children needing early intervention may be missed by this screening tool.

Area of Science:

  • Developmental Pediatrics
  • Child Psychology
  • Educational Psychology

Background:

  • The Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) is widely used for early identification of developmental delays.
  • Assessing the predictive validity of the DDST is crucial for understanding its effectiveness in identifying children at risk for later problems.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the predictive validity of the Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) for school outcomes in children over three years of age.
  • To pool data from multiple studies to provide a comprehensive assessment of the DDST's performance.

Main Methods:

  • A systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies assessing the predictive validity of the DDST.
  • Pooled analysis of data focusing on specificity and sensitivity for predicting later outcomes.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The DDST demonstrated high specificity (94%), correctly identifying children with good outcomes as normal.
  • The DDST exhibited low sensitivity (failing to identify 80% of children with poor outcomes).
  • Children with poor outcomes were 14 times more likely to have abnormal or questionable DDST results.

Conclusions:

  • The DDST is effective in identifying children likely to have good outcomes but is insufficient for identifying all children at risk for poor school outcomes.
  • A significant number of children who could benefit from early intervention due to school-related problems may not be identified by the DDST.
  • The findings suggest limitations in the DDST's ability to serve as a sole screening tool for early intervention.