Concurrent Validity of Ages and Stages Questionnaires in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although preterm infants born at 29 to 36 gestational weeks (GW) are at risk for developmental delay, they do not always benefit from systematic follow-up. Primary care physicians are then responsible for their developmental surveillance and need effective screening tests. This study aimed to determine whether the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) at 12 and 24 months' corrected age (CA) identify developmental delay in preterm infants. METHODS: With a cross-sectional design involving 2 observations at 12 and 24 months' CA, 124 and 112 preterm infants were assessed. Infants were born between May 2004 and April 2006 at 29 to 36 GW. The ASQ and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development were used. Concurrent validity was calculated by using κ coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: At 12 months' CA, the ASQ did not perform well in identifying infants with mental delay (κ = 0.08-0.19; sensitivity = 0.20-0.60; specificity = 0.68-0.88). Agreement (κ = 0.28-0.44) and specificity (0.90-0.97) were better for the psychomotor scale, but the sensitivity remained insufficient (0.25-0.52). At 24 months, the ASQ had good sensitivity (0.75-0.92) and specificity (0.55-0.78) for detecting mental delays (κ = 0.45). Results remained unsatisfactory for detecting motor delays (sensitivity = 0.31-0.50; specificity = 0.73-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Preterm infants with developmental delays at 12 months' CA are not adequately identified with the ASQ. At 24 months' CA, the ASQ identifies mental delays but not psychomotor delays. Additional measures should be used to increase yield of detecting at-risk preterm infants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".