Translations of Developmental Screening Instruments: An Evidence Map of Available Research.

OBJECTIVE: Children whose parents do not speak English experience significant disparities in the identification of developmental delays and disorders; however, little is known about the availability and validity of translations of developmental screeners. The goal was to create a map of the scientific evidence regarding translations of the 9 Academy of Pediatrics-recommended screening instruments into languages other than English. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic search of Medline and PsycINFO, references of identified articles, publishers' Web sites, and official manuals. Through evidence mapping, a new methodology supported by AHRQ and the Cochrane Collaboration, the authors documented the extent and distribution of published evidence supporting translations of developmental screeners. Data extraction focused on 3 steps of the translation and validation process: (1) translation methods used, (2) collection of normative data in the target language, and (3) evidence for reliability and validity. RESULTS: The authors identified 63 distinct translations among the 9 screeners, of which 44 had supporting evidence published in peer-reviewed sources. Of the 63 translations, 35 had at least some published evidence regarding translation methods used, 28 involving normative data, and 32 regarding reliability and/or construct validity. One-third of the translations found were of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Specific methods used varied greatly across screeners, as did the level of detail with which results were reported. CONCLUSION: Few developmental screeners have been translated into many languages. Evidence map of the authors demonstrates considerable variation in both the amount and the comprehensiveness of information available about translated instruments. Informal guidelines exist for conducting translation of psychometric instruments but not for documentation of this process. The authors propose that uniform guidelines be established for reporting translation research in peer-reviewed journals, similar to those for clinical trials and studies of diagnostic accuracy.

Interventions to address parenting and parental substance abuse: conceptual and methodological considerations.

Parental substance abuse is a serious problem affecting the well-being of children and families. The co-occurrence of parental substance abuse and problematic parenting is recognized as a major public health concern. This review focuses on 21 outcome studies that tested dual treatment of substance abuse and parenting. A summary of theoretical conceptualizations of the connections between substance abuse and parenting provides a backdrop for the review. Outcomes of the dual treatment studies were generally positive with respect to reduction of parental substance use and improvement of parenting. Research in this area varied in methodological rigor and needs to overcome challenges regarding design issues, sampling frame, and complexities inherent in such a high-risk population. This area of work can be strengthened by randomized controlled trials, use of mixed-methods outcome measures, consideration of parent involvement with child protective services, involvement of significant others in treatment, provision of concrete supports for treatment attendance and facilitative public policies.

The baby pediatric symptom checklist: development and initial validation of a new social/emotional screening instrument for very young children.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Baby Pediatric Symptom Checklist (BPSC), a brief social/emotional screening instrument for children less than 18 months. The BPSC is modeled after the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) and is part of the Survey of Wellbeing of Young Children, a comprehensive, freely available screening instrument designed for use in pediatric primary care. METHOD: BPSC items were developed by a team of experts who reviewed existing assessment instruments and relevant research literature. Scale construction and initial validation were conducted with 205 families from pediatric primary care sites and 54 families from referral clinics. A replication sample of 146 additional families were enrolled from an independent set of primary care practices. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis revealed 3 dimensions of the BPSC: irritability, inflexibility, and difficulty with routines. Factor structure was confirmed in the replication sample. Retest reliability and internal reliability were adequate (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.70) across subscales, with the exception of the "irritability" subscale's internal reliability in the replication sample. Construct validity of the "irritability" and the "difficulty with routines" subscales is supported by correlations with the Parenting Stress Index and the Ages & Stages Questionnaire: Social/Emotional, but the "inflexibility" subscale seems to be distinct from performance on these instruments. Tests of differential item functioning revealed no significant effects for race/ethnicity, child gender, parent education, or family income. Age-based normative data were calculated for each subscale. CONCLUSION: The BPSC assesses 3 domains of behavior for very young children and shows promise as a social/emotional screening instrument for pediatric primary care.

The Preschool Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PPSC): development and initial validation of a new social/emotional screening instrument.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development and initial validation of the Preschool Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PPSC), a social/emotional screening instrument for children 18 to 60 months of age. The PPSC was created as part of a comprehensive screening instrument designed for pediatric primary care and is modeled after the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. METHOD: Items for the PPSC were developed by a team of experts who reviewed existing assessment instruments and relevant research literature. Scale construction and initial validation (including factor analysis and tests of construct validity) were conducted with 292 families from pediatric primary care sites and 354 families from referral clinics. One hundred seventy-one additional families were recruited from primary care sites to obtain an independent replication sample. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis revealed 4 dimensions of the PPSC: Externalizing, Internalizing, Attention Problems, and Parenting Challenges. These dimensions were incorporated into a bifactor model that displayed a strong general factor, thus supporting the use of a total score. The PPSC total score shows strong internal and retest reliability, and it identifies children who score in the clinical range of a longer, well-validated, and more comprehensive parent-report instrument (the Child Behavior Checklist), as well as children who are reported to have a range of behavioral diagnoses. Moreover, sensitivity and specificity with respect to these criteria were comparable to those of another well-accepted but longer screener, the Ages & Stages Questionnaire: Social/Emotional. Finally, results for the PPSC total scale remained consistent when replicated in an independent sample. CONCLUSION: The PPSC shows promise as a social/emotional screening instrument for use in pediatric primary care.

Quality of life of adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: concordance among adolescents' self-reports, parents' reports, and parents' proxy reports.

PURPOSE: To compare adolescent self-reports with two types of parent reports regarding the quality of life (QoL) of adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs): (1) standard parent reports, in which parents give their own perspective on their adolescent child's QoL and (2) parent proxy reports, in which parents indicate how they believe their adolescent child would answer. METHODS: Thirty-nine adolescents with ASDs and their parents completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Parents completed the form twice, once using standard parent report instructions and again using proxy instructions. Concordance among the three reports was evaluated via Pearson correlations. Differences in means were assessed via ANOVAs. RESULTS: Correlations were higher between parent proxy reports and adolescent self-reports than between standard parent reports and adolescent self-reports. In addition, average scores on the parent proxy reports were closer to adolescents' self-reports than were average scores on the standard parent reports. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that parents of adolescents with ASDs have different opinions about their children's quality of life than their children do, and that they are aware of these differences. If the goal is to reduce discrepancy between the reports of parents and their adolescent children with ASDs, it may be advisable to ask parents to report on their child's QoL as they believe their children would.

Concerns about development, behavior, and learning among parents seeking pediatric care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe responses to the questions "Do you have concerns about your child's behavior? Development? Learning?" among parents seeking pediatric care, and to analyze their correspondence to formal screening questionnaires. METHODS: Of 465 parents of children aged 3 to 65 months recruited at pediatric primary care practices in Greater Boston, 451 provided complete data for analysis. After completing a questionnaire that asked whether they had any or all of these concerns, parents filled out a developmental screener (Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3) and a behavioral screener (Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social-Emotional). RESULTS: One hundred eight parents (24%) reported having at least 1 concern about their child. Greater child age, male gender, and lower family income were associated with more concerns about development, behavior, and learning. Moderate agreement was found between parents' concerns and their responses on screening instruments, but among parents who identified no concerns, 18% were identified as at risk on one or both screening tests. Compared with children who were not identified on either screener, parents of children identified only on the behavioral screener were more likely to have concerns about behavior and parents of children identified on both screeners were more likely to have noted concerns about both behavior and development. No type of concern was associated with identification on the developmental screener alone. CONCLUSION: Parents' self-report of concerns showed moderate agreement with the results of developmental and behavioral screening instruments. Agreement was higher for behavioral concerns than for developmental concerns.