Towards new reference for the Dutch development instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The Dutch Development Instrument (DDI; in Dutch: Van Wiechenonderzoek) is used in the Dutch Youth Health Care (YHC) to monitor child development from birth to the age of 4 years. Reference values for the DDI, which indicate that approximately 90% of children achieve each milestone at the recommended age, were published in 1981. Aim of this study is to evaluate the reference values of the DDI in a Dutch population, to investigate whether new reference values are needed. Materials and methods Anonymized DDI results, collected from 19,840 children born in the period 2011-2013 in the YHC in The Hague, were compared with reference values from previous research. In addition, it was examined whether there are relevant (≥5%) differences between boys and girls. Results The proportion of children achieving a milestone at the recommended age ranged between 81% and 100%. At approximately half of the milestones (32/71; 45%), ≥98% of the children achieved the milestone at the recommended age. For 8/71 (11%) milestones, <90% of the children achieved the milestone at the recommended age. About a quarter of the milestones showed a relevant difference between boys and girls. In most cases, the proportion of girls achieving a milestone was higher than the proportion of boys. Conclusion There is a wide variation in the proportion of children achieving a milestone at the recommended age. Therefore, it is important to develop (sometimes also sex-specific) reference values for broader age-groups that are available to YHC-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 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 | 0.078 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".