Validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire to detect risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder in preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A reliable and valid screening tool for detecting children at risk for Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Third Edition (ASQ-3) motor scales to detect children at risk for DCD in a community-based sample of children aged 3.5-5.5 years. METHODS: One hundred and sixty parent-child pairs were recruited from community-based organizations. Children were eligible if they spoke English and had no known physical impairments. Eligible parents were asked to fill out the ASQ-3, following which their child's fine motor and gross motor proficiency was assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2). DCD risk was defined as those children scoring at or below the 16th percentile on the MABC-2. Sensitivity and specificity of the fine and gross motor areas of the ASQ-3 were examined and referenced against the DCD risk classification. RESULTS: The ASQ-3 total motor score correlated moderately with overall standard score on the MABC-2 (r = 0.41; p < 0.001). Regardless of the ASQ-3 cut-off used, sensitivities of the ASQ-3 fine motor or gross motor scale to detect DCD risk were low at 21-47%, whereas specificities were high at 89-96%. CONCLUSION: Early identification of motor skill delays is important in order to intervene and hopefully prevent the associated negative health consequences. However, because of the low sensitivity of the ASQ-3 motor scales, these results suggest that the ASQ-3 is not an appropriate screening tool to identify children at risk for DCD in the preschool population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".