Developmental Screening With Indigenous Families: Perspectives of Early Years Home Visitors on the ASQ-3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need to add to the limited knowledge base regarding how developmental screening tools can be used in effective and culturally safe ways with Indigenous children and families. The purpose of the current study was to explore the developmental screening experiences of home visitors in a culturally grounded early childhood program (The Early Years Program). We sought to examine Visitors’ experiences with and perceptions of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Third Edition (ASQ-3). Using a qualitative descriptive method and a community-based participatory approach, we conducted focus groups with Early Years Visitors. Findings centered around two categories — (1) logistical considerations and (2) enacting a relational process – with several subcategories within each. Findings highlight the diverse functions of the ASQ-3, including as a medium for strengthening relationships and understanding developmental pathways, a catalyst for strengths-focused conversations with families, and an evaluation tool. The tool’s efficacy is deeply intertwined with the nature of its administration; participants emphasized the value of relational dynamics, preparatory measures, and adaptability of the developmental screening process. Findings add to the limited literature base regarding usage of the ASQ-3 with Indigenous families along with practical considerations for other programs seeking to use this tool.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".