MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296498720 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.supp5.e74

How Well Does the Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS) Identify Communication Problems in Infants?

2016· article· en· W4296498720 on OpenAlexaff
MC Van den Heuvel, C Borkhoff, C Koroshegyi, W Zabih, J Maguire, C Birken, P Parkin

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistToddlerPsychologyMedicinePediatricsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Communication problems are often the first presenting problem in infants with developmental disabilities. With early detection, intervention can start. The 18-month Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS) was created as a developmental checklist for use in primary care. The Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC) is a validated questionnaire for detecting communication problems. Our objective was to examine how well the 18-month NDDS identifies communication problems. We therefore assessed the convergent validity of the 18-month NDDS with the ITC as a gold standard. OBJECTIVES: To examine how well the 18-month NDDS identifies communication problems. To compare parents’ answers to a similar question, “How many different words does your child use?”, on both checklists. DESIGN/METHODS: Healthy children (n = 348, 55% male, mean age 18.6 months, SD 0.7) were recruited during scheduled health supervision visits. Parents completed both the 18-months NDDS and ITC. We assessed the convergent validity of the 18-month NDDS with the ITC as a gold standard. Correlation (Spearman) and the level of agreement (Cohen’s kappa, sensitivity, specificity) were calculated. For our secondary outcome, we compared the percentage of agreement between the answers to the same question on both instruments. RESULTS: On the NDDS, 138 (39.7%) children had “one or more flags” (+1 NDDS) and 54 (15.8%) children had “two or more flags” (+2 NDDS). 13 (3.7%) infants had a concern on the total ITC score, 31 (8.9%) a speech-, 9 (2.6%) a social -, and 14 (4.0%) a symbolic concern.The +2 NDDS had a medium correlation (Spearman’s rho 0.42) and a fair agreement (Cohen’s kappa 0.32) with the ITC. Sensitivity and specificity of the NDDS using the +1 and + 2 flag cut-offs in detecting concerns compared with the ITC are shown in the table.The similar question about number of words spoken by 18-month old infants revealed agreement between the NDDS and ITC; 24.4% versus 30.8% of the 18-month old infants did not speak 20 words or more respectively. CONCLUSION: Infants with a severe overall communication delay were identified with the 18-months NDDS. The low sensitivity of the 2+ NDDS flag in detecting speech and social concerns suggests that infants who could benefit from early interventions may not be identified.The low specificity of the 1+ NDDS flag may cause unnecessary concerns for parents.For the early identification of all levels of communicationdelays, we recommend using a standardized questionnaire like the ITC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicInfant Development and Preterm Care→French-language works237,207→