The Ages and Stages Questionnaires: feasibility of use as a screening tool for children in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy and feasibility of a monitoring tool completed by parents for screening at-risk and community infants and children for developmental problems. METHODS: We assessed 43 children following open-heart surgery and 68 community children (aged 4-36 mo) at prescribed intervals using the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ). Subjects were followed 3 years later (at age 5-6 yr) via telephone interview with their parents concerning developmental delay identified by physicians. Responses were confirmed by telephone interviews with family physicians. We then compared the results of the ASQ with the physician assessments. RESULTS: Nine at-risk and 9 community children were lost to follow-up. The ASQ identified 4 of the 25 at-risk children as having developmental delay, while 2 of the 6 children assessed by a neurologist were identified as having developmental delay. The ASQ identified 2 of the 59 community children as having developmental delay, 1 of whom was assessed by a neurologist as having developmental delay. The ASQ had sensitivities of 75% in the at-risk group and 100% in the community group, and specificities of 95% and 90%, respectively. The parents were unanimous in their willingness to complete the assessments. CONCLUSION: The ASQ is feasible, inexpensive, easy to use, and was appreciated by the parents. It is a sufficiently sensitive and specific monitoring tool that its use in cardiac follow-up programs and in community programs for healthy children is warranted. Although this tool should not be used to replace clinical assessment, it can be used to rationalize access to specialist developmental assessment services.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".