A Comparison of the Korean-Ages and Stages Questionnaires and Denver Developmental Delay Screening Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate concurrent validity between the Korean-Ages and Stages Questionnaires (K-ASQ) and the Denver Developmental Screening Test II (DDST II), and to evaluate the validity of the K-ASQ as a screening tool for detecting developmental delay of Korean children. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was done to examine concurrent validity of the screening potentials for developmental delay between the K-ASQ and the DDST II (n=226). We examined validity of the K-ASQ compared with Capute scale (n=141) and Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) (n=69) as a gold standard of developmental delay. Correlation analysis was used to determine the strength of the associations between tests. RESULTS: A fair to good strength relationship (k=0.442, p<0.05) was found between the K-ASQ and the DDST II. The test characteristics of the K-ASQ were sensitivity 76.3-90.2%, specificity 62.5-76.5%, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 2.41-3.40, and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.16-0.32. CONCLUSION: Evidence of concurrent validity of the K-ASQ with DDST II was found. K-ASQ can be used for screening of developmental delay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".