Developmental assessment of children: A survey of Australian and New Zealand paediatricians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the current practice for developmental assessment of children by Australian and New Zealand paediatricians. To determine factors associated with higher levels of self-reported confidence and expertise in developmental paediatrics and factors associated with better practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional postal survey of Australian and New Zealand paediatricians conducted in 2003, enquiring about their training in developmental paediatrics and their practice for evaluating development. RESULTS: Of 811 questionnaires sent, 590 (73%) were returned. Ninety-one respondents indicated that they did not see children with developmental issues leaving 499 surveys for analysis. The overwhelming majority of paediatricians felt that more training was required in developmental paediatrics (88%) and that there was a need to be taught a formal developmental assessment tool (83%). Higher self-ratings of confidence and expertise in developmental paediatrics were associated with a period of formal developmental training (OR (95% CI) 2.7 (1.6-4.4), 3.4 (2.0-5.8), respectively), and being taught a formal developmental assessment tool (OR (95% CI) 2.0 (1.2-3.2), 2.2 (1.3-3.7), respectively). Predictors of paediatricians performing a formal developmental assessment included formal developmental training (OR (95% CI) 2.0 (1.1-3.8)) being taught an assessment tool (OR (95% CI) 2.8 (1.5-5.2)) and mandatory training (OR (95% CI) 2.4 (1.4-4.1)). CONCLUSIONS: Developmental paediatrics is a significant and important part of paediatric practice. This survey suggests, however, that paediatric training and continuing education should have not reflected this practice. The overall method and content of developmental training including whether formal assessment tools should be taught needs to be reviewed and revised.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".