Acceptability and understanding of the <scp>Ages & Stages Questionnaires</scp>®, <scp>Third Edition</scp>, as part of the <scp>Healthy Child Programme</scp> 2‐year health and development review in <scp>England</scp>: Parent and professional perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Healthy Child Programme is the universal public health system in England to assess and monitor child health from 0 to 19. Following a review of measures for closer monitoring at age 2 years, the Department of Health for England implemented the Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition (ASQ-3™; Hereon, ASQ-3). AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and understanding of the ASQ-3 in England by health professionals and parents. METHOD: A mixed-methods approach was used. This paper reports on the qualitative data drawn from interviews with 40 parents and 12 focus groups with 85 health professionals. The data were analysed using applied thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Overall, parents and health professionals found the ASQ-3 acceptable and understandable and could use it as a measure at age 2 years. The ability to work in partnership was valued. Some limitations included potential to cause anxiety, concerns around the safety of some of the items, and use of Americanized language. Health professional's training in the use the ASQ-3 was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: The ASQ-3 is an acceptable and understandable measure to use as part of the 2-year assessment with some adaptations to the English context and some standardized training for health professionals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".