RESUMEN
ResumenIntroducción: La prueba Evaluación del Desarrollo Infantil (EDI), diseñada en México, clasifica a los niños de acuerdo con su desarrollo en desarrollo normal, rezago en el desarrollo y riesgo de retraso. La versión modificada se desarrolló y validó, pero no se conocen sus propiedades en base poblacional. El objetivo de este trabajo fue establecer la confirmación diagnóstica en niños de 16 a 59 meses identificados con riesgo de retraso por la prueba EDI.Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal de base poblacional en una entidad federativa de México. Se aplicó la prueba EDI a 11,455 niños de 16 a 59 meses, de diciembre de 2013 a marzo de 2014. Se consideró como población elegible al 6.2% (n = 714) que obtuvo como resultado riesgo de retraso. Para la inclusión en el estudio se realizó una aleatorización estratificada por bloques para sexo y grupo de edad. A cada participante se le realizó la evaluación diagnóstica utilizando el Inventario de Desarrollo de Battelle 2ª. edición.Resultados: De los 355 participantes incluidos, el 65.9% fue de sexo masculino y el 80.2% de medio rural. El 6.5% fueron falsos positivos (cociente total de desarrollo ¿ 90) y el 6.8% no tuvo ningún dominio con retraso (cociente de desarrollo de dominio < 80). Se calculó la proporción de retraso en las siguientes áreas: comunicación (82.5%), cognitivo (80.8%), personal-social (33.8%), motor (55.5%) y adaptativo (41.7%). Se observaron diferencias en los porcentajes de retraso por edad y dominio/subdominio evaluado.Conclusiones: Se corroboró la presencia de retraso en al menos un dominio evaluado por la prueba diagnóstica en el 93.2% de la población estudiada.
AbstractBackground: The Child Development Evaluation (or CDE Test) was developed in Mexico as a screening tool for child developmental problems. It yields three possible results: normal, slow development or risk of delay. The modified version was elaborated using the information obtained during the validation study but its properties according to the base population are not known. The objective of this work was to establish diagnostic confirmation of developmental delay in children 16- to 59-months of age previously identified as having risk of delay through the CDE Test in primary care facilities.Methods:A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in one Mexican state. CDE test was administered to 11,455 children 16- to 59-months of age from December/2013 to March/2014. The eligible population represented the 6.2% of the children (n = 714) who were identified at risk of delay through the CDE Test. For inclusion in the study, a block randomization stratified by sex and age group was performed. Each participant included in the study had a diagnostic evaluation using the Battelle Development Inventory, 2nd edition.Results: From the 355 participants included with risk of delay, 65.9% were male and 80.2% were from rural areas; 6.5% were false positives (Total Development Quotient ¿90) and 6.8% did not have any domain with delay (Domain Developmental Quotient <80). The proportion of delay for each domain was as follows: communication 82.5%; cognitive 80.8%; social-personal 33.8%; motor 55.5%; and adaptive 41.7%. There were significant differences in the percentages of delay both by age and by domain/subdomain evaluated.Conclusions: In 93.2% of the participants, developmental delay was corroborated in at least one domain evaluated.
RESUMEN
Introducción: La prueba Evaluación del Desarrollo Infantil (EDI) es un instrumento de tamizaje de problemas en el desarrollo diseñado y validado en México. La calificación obtenida se expresa como semáforo. Se consideran positivos tanto el resultado amarillo como el rojo, aunque se plantea una intervención diferente para cada uno. El objetivo de este trabajo fue evaluar la capacidad de la prueba EDI para discriminar entre los niños identificados con semáforo amarillo y los identificados con rojo al compararse con el Inventario de Desarrollo de Battelle 2.ª edición (IDB-2) en cuanto al cociente de desarrollo del dominio (CDD). Métodos: El análisis se llevó a cabo utilizando la información obtenida para el estudio de la validación. Se excluyeron los pacientes con resultado normal (verde) en EDI. Se utilizaron 2 puntos de CDD (IDB-2) por dominio: < 90 para incluir normal-bajo y < 80 para diagnóstico de retraso. Se analizó el resultado con base en la correlación del resultado del semáforo de EDI (amarillo o rojo) y el IDB-2, total y por subgrupos de edad. Resultados: Al considerar un CDD < 90 en amarillo, el 86.8% tuvo al menos un dominio afectado, y el 50%, 3 o más dominios, en comparación con el 93.8% y el 78.8% para el resultado en rojo, respectivamente. Hubo diferencias en todos los dominios entre amarillos y rojos (p < 0.001) para el porcentaje de niños con un CDD < 80: cognitivo (36.1 vs. 61.9%); comunicación (27.8 vs. 50.4%); motor (18.1 vs. 39.9%); personal-social (20.1 vs. 28.9%); y adaptativo (6.9 vs. 20.4%). Conclusiones: Los resultados de semáforo (amarillo o rojo) permiten identificar diferente magnitud de los problemas en el desarrollo y apoyan intervenciones diferenciadas.
Background: The Child Development Evaluation (CDE) is a screening tool designed and validated in Mexico for detecting developmental problems. The result is expressed through a semaphore. In the CDE test, both yellow and red results are considered positive, although a different intervention is proposed for each. The aim of this work was to evaluate the reliability of the CDE test to discriminate between children with yellow/red result based on the developmental domain quotient (DDQ) obtained through the Battelle Development Inventory, 2nd edition (in Spanish) (BDI-2). Methods: The information was obtained for the study from the validation. Children with a normal (green) result in the CDE were excluded. Two different cut-off points of the DDQ were used (BDI-2): < 90 to include low average, and developmental delay was considered with a cut-off < 80 per domain. Results were analyzed based on the correlation of the CDE test and each domain from the BDI-2 and by subgroups of age. Results: With a cut-off DDQ <90, 86.8% of tests with yellow result (CDE) indicated at least one domain affected and 50% 3 or more compared with 93.8% and 78.8% for red result, respectively. There were differences in every domain (P < 0.001) for the percent of children with DDQ < 80 between yellow and red result (CDE): cognitive 36.1% vs. 61.9%; communication: 27.8% vs. 50.4%, motor: 18.1% vs. 39.9%; personal-social: 20.1% vs. 28.9%; and adaptive: 6.9% vs. 20.4%. Conclusions: The semaphore result yellow/red allows identifying different magnitudes of delay in developmental domains or subdomains, supporting the recommendation of different interventions for each one.
RESUMEN
Background: The Child Development Evaluation (CDE) Test is a screening instrument for developmental problems. In the validation study, a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 61% were reported, considering a cut-off value for both a total development quotient (TDQ) of 90. Given that the TDQ is obtained by calculation of the five evaluated fields in the Battelle Development Inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-2), it may occur that a child is classified as a false positive (TDQ ≥90) and may have a developmental delay in at least one of the fields (true positive). The objective of this work was to evaluate if the properties of the CDE Test are different when analyzing each field for the probability of a developmental delay. Methods: The information obtained for the study from the validation (Rizzoli-Córdoba, 2013) was analyzed. In the CDE Test, a true positive was considered when the result was yellow or red. A developmental delay was considered per domain with a scale score <80 in the BDI-2. The results were analyzed based on the correlation of what was evaluated between the CDE Test and the BDI-2. Results: For 438 children of 1- to 60-months of age, sensitivity (S) and specificity (Sp) per field were as follows: a) Motor: S=84.3% and Sp=87%; b) Communication: S=79.5% and Sp=79.4%; c) Personal-Social: S=86.9% and Sp=85%; d) Adaptive: S=91.7% and Sp=85.1%; and e) Cognitive: S=83.6% and Sp=88.8%. Conclusions: When analyzing each field separately, better scores for the CDE are observed compared with those reported for the TDQ in both sensitivity and specificity.