Can teachers' global ratings identify children with academic problems?

Physicians often elicit ratings from teachers when making diagnostic, treatment, or referral decisions. The purpose of this study was to view the relationship between teachers' ratings and children's academic skills, assess the utility of teacher ratings in detecting academic problems, and thus determine whether physicians can depend on teacher ratings when making decisions about patients' needs. Subjects were a national sample of 80 teachers and 934 children between 6 and 13 years of age participating in a test standardization study. Families were representative of United States demographics in terms of parental level of education, income, and ethnicity, and sites were geographically diverse elementary schools. Children were administered the Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills--Revised (CIBS-R), a diagnostic academic achievement test. Teachers rated children's academic performance on a five-point scale ranging from far above average to far below average and were blinded to the results of the CIBS-R. Teacher ratings varied significantly with children's performance for all academic domains. Logistic regression revealed that teacher ratings were best predicted by children's performance in basic reading skills, followed by math skills, and were not influenced by race, parents' level of education, history of retention, or gender. Participation in Title I services, testing in winter or spring, and parents who spoke a language other than English produced significantly lower ratings. Nevertheless, teachers rated as average many students with mild to moderate academic difficulties. School system personnel and health care providers should avoid sole dependence on global teacher ratings when deciding which students need special education referrals or other services. Supplementing teacher ratings with standardized screening test results is needed to ensure accurate decision-making.

Are overreferrals on developmental screening tests really a problem?

BACKGROUND: Developmental screening tests, even those meeting standards for screening test accuracy, produce numerous false-positive results for 15% to 30% of children. This is thought to produce unnecessary referrals for diagnostic testing or special services and increase the cost of screening programs. OBJECTIVES: To explore whether children who pass screening tests differ in important ways from those who do not and to determine whether children overreferred for testing benefit from the scrutiny of diagnostic testing and treatment planning. METHODS: Subjects were a national sample of 512 parents and their children (age range of the children, 7 months to 8 years) who participated in validation studies of various screening tests. Psychological examiners adhering to standardized directions obtained informed consent and administered at least 2 developmental screening measures (the Brigance Screens, the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test, the Denver-II, and the Parents' Evaluations of Developmental Status) and a concurrent battery of diagnostic measures, including tests of intelligence, language, and academic achievement (for children aged 2(1/2) years and older). The performance on diagnostic measures of children who failed screening but were not found to have a disability (false positives) was compared with that of children who passed screening and did not have a disability on diagnostic testing (true negatives). RESULTS: Children with false-positive scores performed significantly (P<.001) lower on diagnostic measures than did children with true-negative scores. The false-positive group had scores in adaptive behavior, language, intelligence, and academic achievement that were 9 to 14 points lower than the scores of those in the true-negative group. When viewing the likelihood of scoring below the 25th percentile on diagnostic measures, children with false-positive scores had a relative risk of 2.6 in adaptive behavior (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-4.21), 3.1 in language skills (95% CI, 1.90-5.20), 6.7 on intelligence tests (95% CI, 3.28-13.50), and 4.9 on academic measures (95% CI, 2.61-9.28). Overall, 151 (70%) of the children with false-positive results scored below the 25th percentile on 1 or more diagnostic measures (the point at which most children have difficulty benefiting from typical classroom instruction) in contrast with 64 (29%) of the children with true-negative scores (odds ratio, 5.6; 95% CI, 3.73-8.49). Children with false-positive scores were also more likely to be nonwhite and to have parents who had not graduated from high school. Performance differences between children with true-negative scores and children with false-positive scores continued to be significant (P<.001) even after adjusting for sociodemographic differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Children overreferred for diagnostic testing by developmental screens perform substantially lower than children with true-negative scores on measures of intelligence, language, and academic achievement-the 3 best predictors of school success. These children also carry more psychosocial risk factors, such as limited parental education and minority status. Thus, children with false-positive screening results are an at-risk group for whom diagnostic testing may not be an unnecessary expense but rather a beneficial and needed service that can help focus intervention efforts. Although such testing will not indicate a need for special education placement, it can be useful in identifying children's needs for other programs known to improve language, cognitive, and academic skills, such as Head Start, Title I services, tutoring, private speech-language therapy, and quality day care.

Evidence-based approach to developmental and behavioural surveillance using parents' concerns.

Half of all children with disabilities are not identified before school entrance, which precludes their participation in early intervention programs. Such programs have known value in reducing high school drop-out rates, increasing employment, delaying child-bearing and reducing criminal behaviour. Although there are many screening tests that can greatly improve detection rates, these have not been popular in primary care due to test length, difficulty managing children's behaviour, etc. An alternative is to carefully elicit and interpret parents' concerns. Research shows that parents' concerns are as accurate as quality screening tests and that parents are equally able to raise important concerns regardless of differences in education and child-rearing experience. Parents' concerns can be elicited quickly and 92% of parents can answer questions in writing while in exam or waiting rooms. Unlike screening tests, use of parents' concerns facilitates an evidenced-based approach to comprehensive surveillance and aids in making a range of other important decisions about children's developmental and behavioural needs. These include when to: offer suggestions on developmental promotion; watch children more vigilantly; screen for emotional and behavioural problems; advise families about behaviour management; offer reassurance and routine monitoring of development that is likely normal; administer a second screening test; or refer for additional testing and the kinds of testing needed.

Detecting and addressing developmental and behavioral problems in primary care.

Pediatric primary care clinicians usually offer a range of in-office services designed to detect and address developmental and behavioral problems. Research suggests that selecting among these services is difficult because fewer than 30% of children with disabilities are detected by their health care providers. Undetected children fail to receive early intervention, which has substantive benefits in improving high school graduation and employment rates, and reducing teen pregnancy and criminal activities. Fortunately, many recently published tools help detect the majority of children with problems. Measures relying on information from parents are flexible, brief, and accurate. One of the briefest tools. Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), also offers an evidenced-based approach that helps clinicians decide when to refer, screen, advise, or reassure families or observe children more carefully over time.

Using parents' concerns to detect and address developmental and behavioral problems.

PURPOSE: Half of all children with disabilities are not identified before school entrance, precluding their participation in early intervention programs with known value in reducing high school dropout rates, increasing employment, delaying child-bearing, and reducing criminal behavior. Screening tests that can greatly improve detection rates have not been popular in primary care. This article describes an alternative approach in an evidence-based technique relying on professional elicitation and interpretation of parents' concerns. POPULATION: 971 children from pediatric practices, day-care centers, public schools, and their siblings. CONCLUSIONS: Research shows that parents' concerns are as accurate as quality screening tests and that parents are equally able to raise important concerns regardless of differences in education and child-rearing experience. Parents' concerns can be elicited quickly, and 92% of parents can answer questions in writing while in exam or waiting rooms. Parents' concerns can help make a range of other important decisions about children's developmental and behavioral needs.

Brief approaches to educating patients and parents in primary care.

PURPOSE: Pediatricians are encouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Bright Futures guidelines to use well-child care as an opportunity to promote learning and development, encourage positive parenting practices, help children acquire behavioral self-control, and enhance the well-being of children and their families. Such counseling can consume considerable provider time. In an era of dwindling resources for health care, there is pressure to deliver services as efficiently and effectively as possible. Thus, the purpose of this article is to view methods for patient and parent education that are not only effective but also brief. DESIGN: Review of 114 articles on issues relevant to patient education. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Parents appear to respond best to information that focuses on their specific area of concern. Media, such as advertising campaigns or office posters, can be helpful for broadening parents' range of interests. In response, verbal suggestions are effective for conveying brief, concrete information when parents are not stressed. Written information should be added for addressing more complex issues. Modeling and role-playing appear especially useful when confronted with problematic parenting or child behavior. These approaches, if selected wisely and applied well, offer families needed assistance that has proven effectiveness in improving children's and families' health and well-being.

An economic analysis of developmental detection methods.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and benefits of various approaches to early detection of developmental disabilities. DESIGN: Cost-benefit analyses based on data from previously published studies of developmental screening tests. SETTING: General pediatric practices and day care centers. PATIENTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 247 parents and their 0- to 6-year-old children-103 from day care centers and 144 from pediatric practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Licensed psychological examiners administered a screening test of parents' concerns about children's development and one or two direct screening tests: the Denver-II and/or the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test. For the day care sample, examiners also administered to each child measures of intelligence, adaptive behavior, and language. In the pediatric sample, children were administered additional assessments. At the same time, diagnostic measures were administered to a randomly selected subsample to make determinations about developmental status. Each screening method was evaluated for its short-term costs (administration, interpretation, diagnosis, and treatment) and long-term benefits (impact of early intervention on adult functioning as inferred from longitudinal studies by other researchers). RESULTS: When the long-term costs and benefits were considered, none of the approaches emerged as markedly superior to another. When viewing the short-term costs, the various screening approaches differed markedly. The use of parents' concerns was by far the least costly for physicians to administer and interpret. CONCLUSION: Physicians can incur tremendous expenses when attempting to detect children with developmental problems. Although the benefits of early detection and intervention are substantial, physicians are not well-compensated for providing a critical service to society. Health policymakers and third-party payers must reconsider their minimal investment in early detection by health care providers. Nevertheless, our findings have encouraging implications for practice, because the use of parents' concerns as a screening technique offers substantial savings over and above other methods.

Parents' concerns about children's development: prescreening technique or screening test?

OBJECTIVE: Due to the limitations of previous studies, parents' concerns have been recommended as a prescreening technique, a brief method for identifying a subset of children in need of more in-depth developmental screening. The purpose of this study was to assess whether parents' concerns could: (1) serve instead as a screening measure; (2) aid in making focused referral decisions; and (3) help pediatricians target families for developmental promotion and in-office counseling. An additional goal was to determine why most parents' concerns are accurate although some are not. DESIGN SURVEY/SETTING: Public schools and day care centers in four diverse geographic sites representing the northern, central, southern and western United States. PATIENTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 408 children between 21 and 84 months of age and their parents, whose socioeconomic and demographic characteristics reflect proportions in the 1990 United States Census. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Licensed psychological examiners and educational diagnosticians elicited parents' concerns about children's development and measured children's development with a broad battery including measures of intelligence, language, motor, and school skills. RESULTS: Certain concerns, ie, motor, language, global/ cognitive, and school (in children 4 years and older) had high levels of sensitivity and identified 79% of the 56 children with disabilities. Accurate referrals could be made for 70% of the 56 children. The absence of concerns or concerns in other areas, ie, socialization, self-help, or behavior, had reasonable specificity and identified 72% (N = 255) of the 352 typically developing children. Of the remaining 28% (N = 97) of parents with significant concerns but whose children did not have disabilities, most had children with substantially lower performance in almost all developmental areas than the children of the 255 parents without significant concerns. Further, more than half of the 97 children could be distinguished by a single concern (usually about expressive language) whereas the majority of accurately concerned parents had multiple concerns. A significant proportion of the 12 parents of disabled children who did not raise concerns could be identified by difficulties communicating in either English or Spanish. CONCLUSION: If systematically elicited, parents' concerns approach standards for screening tests and can be used to make reasonably accurate referral decisions. Over-referrals can be significantly reduced by administered screening tests to the small group of children (16%) whose parents have a single significant concern. Those who pass screening or whose parents have nonsignificant concerns can be targeted for developmental promotion and in-office counseling. Under-referrals can be minimized by administering screening tests (with the help of an interpreter as needed) to children whose parents have communication difficulties.

Value of parents' estimates of children's developmental ages.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether parents' estimates of children's developmental ages can function as a prescreening technique. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Parents of 234 children from birth to 77 months of age seeking well-child care in pediatric offices were queried in two separate studies. In the first study, parents were asked to give an estimate of their child's overall developmental age and, in the second study, to estimate ages in each of six developmental domains. Children were administered a range of screening measures of intelligence, speech-language, and adoptive behavior. RESULTS: The overall age-estimate, if less than chronologic age, was 75% sensitive to likely developmental problems and, if equal to or greater than chronologic age, was 90% specific in identifying children likely to have typical development. Age estimates for each developmental domain were 81% sensitive to likely developmental problems if less than chronologic age in the domains of fine motor, language, grass motor, or behavior, and 62% specific if equal to or greater than chronologic age. Estimates at or below chronologic age in receptive language or personal-social domains were 90% sensitive and 43% specific in identifying likely behavior problems. There were no differences in the accuracy of parents estimates on the basis of children's age, gender, race, parents' level of education, or parenting experience. CONCLUSION: Parents' overall age-estimates provided a sensitive and specific indicator of global developmental status, but insufficient information about strengths and weaknesses to enable focused referrals for services. In contrast, discrete patterns of age estimates in each developmental domain sensitively discriminated children with developmental versus behavioral problems, although specificity was limited. Age estimates appear to be a potentially helpful method for identifying a subset of children in need of thorough screening, although further research is needed on a larger sample given diagnostic rather than screening tests.

The role of parents in the detection of developmental and behavioral problems.

OBJECTIVE: The success of early identification of children with developmental and behavioral problems is influenced by the manner in which pediatricians elicit, recognize, and select clinical information and derive appropriate impressions. Parents are ready sources of clinical information, and they can be asked to provide two broad types of data: appraisals, including concerns, estimations, and predictions; and descriptions, including recall and report. The purpose of this article is to help pediatricians make optimal use of clinical information from parents to increase the accuracy of clinical judgment in detecting children with developmental and behavioral problems. DESIGN: Review of 78 research articles and tests relying on parent information from pediatric, psychological, and education literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There are several formats for eliciting parental information that are superior in terms of accuracy and ease of evocation. Specifically, parents' concerns and good-quality standardized parent report measures such as the Child Development Inventories capitalize best on parents' observations and insights into their children. In combination, these two types of parental information offer an effective method for the early detection of behavioral and developmental problems in primary-care settings.

Assessing children's development using parents' reports. The Child Development Inventory.

The Child Development Inventory (CDI), completed by parents at home, assesses the development of social, self-help, motor, language, letter and number skills, and presence of symptoms and behavior problems of children between the ages of 15 months and 5 years. The results provide the pediatrician with a profile of the child's development, problems, and strengths, and are an aid to comprehensive assessment. CDI norms and validity were determined for a community sample of 568 children. The CDI developmental scales correlate closely with age (r = 0.84). CDI results identified all the normative group children who were enrolled in early childhood/special education (N = 26) and correlated with academic achievement for children in kindergarten (N = 132). CDI scales correlated with reading achievement in kindergarten as follows: general development 0.69, letters 0.56, language comprehensive 0.42, expressive language 0.36, and self-help 0.35. Thus, the CDI provides a useful measure of children's development and, because of its reliance on parental reports, offers an effective approach to developmental assessment in the busy pediatric practice.

It's not what it seems. The relationship between parents' concerns and children with global delays.

Parents of children with significant behavioral or emotional problems have tended to be concerned about their behavior or emotional well-being, whereas parents of children with speech-language impairments were more concerned about speech-language development. The present study was designed to assess whether a parallel relationship between type of parental concern and type of developmental problem continues when children have global delays. Subjects were 95 parents and their children from birth to 6 years of age who attended day-care centers. Parents' concerns were categorized into developmental domains. Children were given a criterion battery of intelligence and adaptive behavior tests. Global delay was identified in 18 children (19%). Concerns about global development were raised by only 5% of all parents. Concerns about speech-language and/or behavior were sensitive in detecting global deficits (83%), while the absence of such concerns had modest specificity in detecting normal development (47%). Parents' concerns continue to be useful in prescreening and can identify patients in need of further screening. However, pediatricians should anticipate that parents of children with global delays may raise concerns, not about global development, but rather about behavior/emotional status and/or speech-language skills. The best response to such concerns is to administer screening measures which assess multiple developmental domains.

Obstacles to effective developmental surveillance: errors in clinical reasoning.

Recent research and legislation support the importance of early identification and intervention for children with developmental and behavioral or emotional problems. Detecting these children often depends on medical professionals, especially pediatricians. However, few pediatricians use developmental screening tests to help them identify children. Rather, physicians usually rely on their clinical impressions to discriminate children with and without difficulties. Research on the accuracy of clinical impressions, although sparse, suggests that only half the children in need are identified. The most obvious reasons, such as severity of the problem or the type of clinical information physicians select (e.g., parents' concerns, observations of the child, history, etc.), do not fully explain why some children are identified and others are not. More complete explanations are found in research on clinical impression formation that suggests physician's selection from the array of clinical data is mediated by their unique experiences, beliefs, and attitudes. These qualities provide a set of judgment heuristics for sorting seemingly relevant from irrelevant information. Judgment heuristics, depending on their content, may lead to accurate or inaccurate impressions. This article suggests a model of ideal impression formation that may help physicians learn to more accurately identify children with developmental and behavioral or emotional problems.

The usefulness of the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test.

Recent research supporting the effectiveness of early intervention and laws expanding services have increased the demand for accurate developmental screening tests. The Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test (BDIST), for children 6 months to 8 years old, has a number of desirable features, including subtests for fine and gross motor, adaptive, personal-social, receptive and expressive language, and cognitive skills; a range cutoff and age-equivalent scores; and national standardization. To assess its accuracy, the BDIST was administered to 104 children 7 to 83 months old, along with several other screening tests and a battery of criterion measures. Tied to 1.5 standard deviations below the mean, BDIST failing scores were moderately sensitive, detecting 75% of the children with developmental problems, such as mental retardation, borderline intelligence, language delays, and learning disabilities. Since 73% of the nonhandicapped children passed the BDIST, the test showed moderate specificity. Children within one month of their birthdays were likely to be over- or underreferred. Although the BDIST needs further research, it is a promising developmental screening instrument. The Receptive Language (RL) subtest, slightly more sensitive than the total BDIST but less specific, takes only a few minutes and thus is useful for prescreening in time-limited settings, such as pediatric practice.

The usefulness of the Developmental Profile-II in developmental screening.

Timely provision of early developmental intervention depends on accurate developmental screening tests. The Developmental Profile-II (DP-II) relies on parent report to assess children from birth to 7 years old. One of its subtests, the Academic scale, is designed for developmental screening. To test its accuracy in detecting children with problems, the scale was administered to parents of 94 children between 6 and 75 months old. Each child was also given a battery of tests, such as the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. The Academic scale detected only 21% of the 19 children thus determined as having developmental problems, while 85% of the nondiagnosed children received normal or advanced scores on DP-II. Analysis revealed that DP-II scoring criteria are far too lenient and that many items are poorly placed in relation to age expectations. Alternative cutoff scores greatly improved sensitivity. DP-II is a potentially accurate measure that needs updating and restandardizing. Alternative tests include the Minnesota Child Development Inventory and the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test.