印度儿童筛查:家长发育状况评估》和《优势与困难问卷》的翻译和心理测量学评估。

IF 1.4 Q3 PEDIATRICS Pediatric Reports Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.3390/pediatric15040067
Hina Sheel, Lidia Suárez, Nigel V Marsh
{"title":"印度儿童筛查:家长发育状况评估》和《优势与困难问卷》的翻译和心理测量学评估。","authors":"Hina Sheel, Lidia Suárez, Nigel V Marsh","doi":"10.3390/pediatric15040067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Timely screening and surveillance of children for developmental delay and social-emotional learning difficulties are essential in Low- and Middle-Income Countries like India. Screening measures like the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) are considered suitable for India due to their low cost, easy accessibility, and no training requirement for administration. However, India lacks validated screening measures, and the PEDS and SDQ have yet to be validated for children in India. The study aimed to translate the PEDS and SDQ from English to Hindi and psychometrically evaluate the same measures on children aged 4-8 years in India. The original PEDS and SDQ forms and their translations were pilot tested on 55 participants and evaluated using data from 407 children with typical development (TD) and 59 children with developmental disability (DD). Parents and teachers reported no meaningful discrepancy between the original and translated (Hindi) questionnaires. Internal consistency for the PEDS was acceptable, but unacceptable for most subscales on the SDQ, for both TD and DD samples. Test-retest reliability was poor for the PEDS but adequate for the SDQ. Results from known-group validity testing showed that the PEDS scores could be used to distinguish between the TD and DD samples. The results from this study provide further support for the use of the PEDS and SDQ in developing countries like India.</p>","PeriodicalId":45251,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Reports","volume":"15 4","pages":"750-765"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10745979/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening Children in India: Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire.\",\"authors\":\"Hina Sheel, Lidia Suárez, Nigel V Marsh\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/pediatric15040067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Timely screening and surveillance of children for developmental delay and social-emotional learning difficulties are essential in Low- and Middle-Income Countries like India. Screening measures like the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) are considered suitable for India due to their low cost, easy accessibility, and no training requirement for administration. However, India lacks validated screening measures, and the PEDS and SDQ have yet to be validated for children in India. The study aimed to translate the PEDS and SDQ from English to Hindi and psychometrically evaluate the same measures on children aged 4-8 years in India. The original PEDS and SDQ forms and their translations were pilot tested on 55 participants and evaluated using data from 407 children with typical development (TD) and 59 children with developmental disability (DD). Parents and teachers reported no meaningful discrepancy between the original and translated (Hindi) questionnaires. Internal consistency for the PEDS was acceptable, but unacceptable for most subscales on the SDQ, for both TD and DD samples. Test-retest reliability was poor for the PEDS but adequate for the SDQ. Results from known-group validity testing showed that the PEDS scores could be used to distinguish between the TD and DD samples. The results from this study provide further support for the use of the PEDS and SDQ in developing countries like India.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"750-765\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10745979/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric15040067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric15040067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在印度这样的中低收入国家,及时筛查和监测儿童发育迟缓和社会情感学习困难至关重要。家长发育状况评估(PEDS)和优势与困难问卷(SDQ)等筛查方法因其成本低廉、易于使用、无需培训等特点而被认为适合印度。然而,印度缺乏经过验证的筛查措施,PEDS 和 SDQ 也尚未针对印度儿童进行验证。本研究旨在将 PEDS 和 SDQ 从英语翻译成印地语,并对印度 4-8 岁儿童进行心理测量评估。原始的 PEDS 和 SDQ 表格及其翻译在 55 名参与者身上进行了试点测试,并使用 407 名典型发育(TD)儿童和 59 名发育障碍(DD)儿童的数据进行了评估。据家长和教师反映,原始问卷与翻译(印地语)问卷之间没有明显差异。在TD和DD样本中,PEDS的内部一致性是可以接受的,但SDQ的大多数分量表的内部一致性是不可接受的。PEDS的重测可靠性较差,但SDQ的重测可靠性较好。已知组有效性测试的结果表明,PEDS得分可用于区分TD和DD样本。这项研究的结果进一步支持了PEDS和SDQ在印度等发展中国家的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Screening Children in India: Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire.

Timely screening and surveillance of children for developmental delay and social-emotional learning difficulties are essential in Low- and Middle-Income Countries like India. Screening measures like the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) are considered suitable for India due to their low cost, easy accessibility, and no training requirement for administration. However, India lacks validated screening measures, and the PEDS and SDQ have yet to be validated for children in India. The study aimed to translate the PEDS and SDQ from English to Hindi and psychometrically evaluate the same measures on children aged 4-8 years in India. The original PEDS and SDQ forms and their translations were pilot tested on 55 participants and evaluated using data from 407 children with typical development (TD) and 59 children with developmental disability (DD). Parents and teachers reported no meaningful discrepancy between the original and translated (Hindi) questionnaires. Internal consistency for the PEDS was acceptable, but unacceptable for most subscales on the SDQ, for both TD and DD samples. Test-retest reliability was poor for the PEDS but adequate for the SDQ. Results from known-group validity testing showed that the PEDS scores could be used to distinguish between the TD and DD samples. The results from this study provide further support for the use of the PEDS and SDQ in developing countries like India.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Reports
Pediatric Reports PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
ABCB1 Polymorphism Is Associated with Higher Carbamazepine Clearance in Children. Should the Definition of Low Birth Weight Be Same in Every Ethnicity Considering the DOHaD Concept? The Use of PediSTAT Application by Paramedics Working in Saudi Arabia to Reduce the Risk of Medication Error for Pediatric Patients. Impact of a Structured Social Skills Training Program on Adolescents and Young Adults with Level 1 Autism. Investigating the Relationship Between Midazolam Serum Concentrations and Paediatric Delirium in Critically Ill Children.
×
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