↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the revised Nipissing District Developmental Screening (NDDS) tool for use in general population samples of infants and children

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the revised Nipissing District Developmental Screening (NDDS) tool for use in general population samples of infants and children
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12887-016-0577-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Cairney, Jean Clinton, Scott Veldhuizen, Christine Rodriguez, Cheryl Missiuna, Terrance Wade, Peter Szatmari, Marilyn Kertoy

Abstract

There is widespread interest in identification of developmental delay in the first six years of life. This requires, however, a reliable and valid measure for screening. In Ontario, the 18-month enhanced well-baby visit includes province-wide administration of a parent-reported survey, the Nipissing District Developmental Screening (NDDS) tool, to facilitate early identification of delay. Yet, at present the psychometric properties of the NDDS are largely unknown. 812 children and their families were recruited from the community. Parents (most often mothers) completed the NDDS. A sub-sample (n = 111) of parents completed the NDDS again within a two-week period to assess test-retest reliability. For children 3 or younger, the criterion measure was the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3rd edition; for older children, a battery of other measures was used. All criterion measures were administered by trained assessors. Mild and severe delays were identified based on both published cut-points and on the distribution of raw scores. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated to assess agreement between tests. Test-retest reliability was modest (Spearman's rho = .62, p < 001). Regardless of the age of the child, the definition of delay (mild versus severe), or the cut-point used on the NDDS, sensitivities (from 29 to 68 %) and specificities (from 58 to 88 %) were poor to moderate. The modest test-retest results, coupled with the generally poor observed agreement with criterion measures, suggests the NDDS should not be used on its own for identification of developmental delay in community or population-based settings.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 23%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 10 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#2,596
of 3,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,793
of 300,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#23
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.