4.3 Article

Comparison between Ages & Stages Questionnaire and Bayley Scales, to predict cognitive delay in school age

Journal

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Volume 141, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.104933

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Universidad del Desarrollo, Interfaculty project
  2. Sociedad Chilena de Pediatria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the predictive value of the Spanish Ages & Stages Questionnaire third edition adapted for Chilean population (ASQ-Cl) and the Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development 3rd edition (Bayley-III) for cognitive delay at school age, and to identify the domain predictors. Methodology: Data were collected from 306 term and preterm children of medium-high socio-economic level enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Developmental outcomes at 8, 18 and 30 months were assessed via the ASQ-Cl and Bayley-III; at 6-8 years cognitive development was assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III). The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated, and logistic regression analysis was used. Results: Of 227 children studied, 6.6% had cognitive delay. ASQ-Cl and Bayley-III generate equivalent AUC [0.77 and 0.80]. Sensitivity 67% and 53%; specificity of 72% and 88%, positive predictive value of 14% and 24%, negative predictive values of 97% and 96% respectively. Greater predictive validity was obtained at 30 months assessment. Deficit in the communication and gross motor skills and problem-solving domains of the ASQ-Cl and all the Bayley-III domains were significantly associated with cognitive delay. Conclusions: ASQ-Cl can be used to identify children at risk for cognitive delay at 6-8 years of age, being comparable with the Bayley-III. Some domains of ASQ-Cl and all domains of Bayley-III were significant predictors for cognitive delay. These results support the use of ASQ-Cl as a screening tool for developmental delay.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available