A Scoping Review on the Use of the Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status and PEDS: Developmental Milestones Screening Tools

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Early Intervention Pub Date : 2022-05-02 DOI:10.1177/10538151221091202
Shabnam Abdoola, D. Swanepoel, J. van der Linde
{"title":"A Scoping Review on the Use of the Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status and PEDS: Developmental Milestones Screening Tools","authors":"Shabnam Abdoola, D. Swanepoel, J. van der Linde","doi":"10.1177/10538151221091202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS: Developmental Milestones (PEDS: DM) and PEDS tools (i.e., the PEDS and PEDS:DM combined for use) are parent-reported screening tools frequently used to identify young children requiring early intervention. An ideal screening tool for all contexts would be brief, inexpensive with appropriate test items and good psychometric properties. A scoping review was conducted to review studies that used the PEDS, PEDS:DM, and PEDS tools to screen for the need for further referrals and evaluation through parent report. Thirty articles, ranging from 2003 to 2020, conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs), were included from the 1,468 records identified. Studies conducted in HICs (n = 19) included screening of special population groups and comparing validated tools. LMIC studies (n = 11) focused on translations, combination of the PEDS tools, validations of tools, and use of an app-based tool (mHealth). High referral rates were obtained with PEDS (23–41%) and PEDS:DM (12–54%) in LMICs where at-risk populations are more prevalent and cultural differences may affect tool validity. A global dearth of research on PEDS:DM and PEDS tools exist; the review highlights factors that influence the validity and impact widespread use of the screening measures, especially in diverse populations and LMICs.","PeriodicalId":47360,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Intervention","volume":"45 1","pages":"203 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151221091202","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS), PEDS: Developmental Milestones (PEDS: DM) and PEDS tools (i.e., the PEDS and PEDS:DM combined for use) are parent-reported screening tools frequently used to identify young children requiring early intervention. An ideal screening tool for all contexts would be brief, inexpensive with appropriate test items and good psychometric properties. A scoping review was conducted to review studies that used the PEDS, PEDS:DM, and PEDS tools to screen for the need for further referrals and evaluation through parent report. Thirty articles, ranging from 2003 to 2020, conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs), were included from the 1,468 records identified. Studies conducted in HICs (n = 19) included screening of special population groups and comparing validated tools. LMIC studies (n = 11) focused on translations, combination of the PEDS tools, validations of tools, and use of an app-based tool (mHealth). High referral rates were obtained with PEDS (23–41%) and PEDS:DM (12–54%) in LMICs where at-risk populations are more prevalent and cultural differences may affect tool validity. A global dearth of research on PEDS:DM and PEDS tools exist; the review highlights factors that influence the validity and impact widespread use of the screening measures, especially in diverse populations and LMICs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
父母评估发展状况和PEDS:发展里程碑筛选工具的使用范围综述
家长发展状况评估(PEDS), PEDS:发展里程碑(PEDS: DM)和PEDS工具(即,PEDS和PEDS:DM合并使用)是家长报告的筛查工具,经常用于识别需要早期干预的幼儿。一个理想的筛选工具应该是简短的,廉价的,适当的测试项目和良好的心理测量特性。对使用PEDS、PEDS:DM和PEDS工具筛选是否需要进一步转诊和通过家长报告进行评估的研究进行范围审查。从已确定的1468份记录中纳入了2003年至2020年期间在高收入国家(HICs)和中低收入国家(LMICs)进行的30篇文章。在hic (n = 19)中进行的研究包括筛选特殊人群和比较有效的工具。LMIC研究(n = 11)侧重于翻译、PEDS工具的组合、工具的验证以及基于应用程序的工具(mHealth)的使用。在低收入中低收入人群中,PEDS(23-41%)和PEDS:DM(12-54%)的转诊率较高,其中高危人群更为普遍,文化差异可能会影响工具的有效性。全球缺乏关于PEDS的研究:存在DM和PEDS工具;审查强调了影响有效性和影响筛查措施广泛使用的因素,特别是在不同人群和中低收入国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Early Intervention (JEI) publishes articles related to research and practice in early intervention for infants and young children with special needs and their families. Early intervention is defined broadly as procedures that facilitate the development of infants and young children who have special needs or who are at risk for developmental disabilities. The childhood years in which early intervention might occur begin at birth, or before birth for some prevention programs, and extend through the years in which children traditionally begin elementary school.
期刊最新文献
Investigating Caregivers’ Advocacy Efforts in Early Intervention Using Auto-Photography and Photo-Elicitation Interviews Authentic Assessment of Executive Functions in Early Childhood: A Scoping Review A Pilot Study of the Effectiveness and Feasibility of an Early Intervention Leadership Program for Families of Children With Disabilities Evaluating a Rapid Coaching Intervention Delivered Remotely to Families Tele-Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned From Early Intervention Practitioners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1