Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/article/view/7266 |
Resumo: | The literature shows the importance of early identification of child development delays and difficulty in choosing assessment instruments. The objectives of this study were to compare the Denver II and RDB with a scale of reference (EEDP) concerning children identification with delay of development; to verify difference in the results considering gender of the participants and to investigate results convergence of the scales. Participants were 24 babies with ages ranging from five to 11 months, both sex, attending to local nurseries. The instruments were administered individually and sequentially pre-defined. Statistical analysis revealed that the scale RDB and the Denver II may not be considered similar to the scale EEDP. Considering sex, there was no significant difference. There was no convergence of faulty items in the areas. Therefore, important to be careful on the choice of instruments for screening and obtaining information from different sources on child development. |
id |
USP-22_efa43ed30adec8d4efe273ea84484163 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usp.br:article/7266 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-22 |
network_name_str |
Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development Análisis de instrumentos para la selección del desarrollo infantil Análise de instrumentos para triagem do desenvolvimento infantil desenvolvimento infantilescalas de desenvolvimentotriagemdesarrollo infantilescalas de desarrollotriajechildhood developmentdevelopment scalestriage The literature shows the importance of early identification of child development delays and difficulty in choosing assessment instruments. The objectives of this study were to compare the Denver II and RDB with a scale of reference (EEDP) concerning children identification with delay of development; to verify difference in the results considering gender of the participants and to investigate results convergence of the scales. Participants were 24 babies with ages ranging from five to 11 months, both sex, attending to local nurseries. The instruments were administered individually and sequentially pre-defined. Statistical analysis revealed that the scale RDB and the Denver II may not be considered similar to the scale EEDP. Considering sex, there was no significant difference. There was no convergence of faulty items in the areas. Therefore, important to be careful on the choice of instruments for screening and obtaining information from different sources on child development. La literatura muestra la importancia de la identificación temprana de signos de retraso en el desarrollo del niño y la dificultad en la elección de instrumentos de evaluación. El objetivo fue comparar el Denver II y la EDC con una escala de referencia (EEDP) cuanto a la identificación de los niños con retraso en el desarrollo; verificar la diferencia en los resultados, teniendo en cuenta el género de los participantes e investigar la convergencia de los resultados de las escalas. Participaron 24 bebés con edades entre cinco y once meses, de ambos sexos, que iban a guarderías municipales. Los instrumentos fueron administrados individualmente o en secuencia predeterminada. El análisis estadístico mostró que la escala de EDC y el Denver II no puede considerarse similar a la escala EEDP. En cuanto al sexo, no hubo diferencia significativa. No hubo convergencia de los puntos malogrados según las áreas. Por lo tanto, es importante ser cuidadoso en la elección de los instrumentos de selección y obtener informaciones procedentes de diferentes fuentes sobre el desarrollo del niño. A literatura mostra a importância da identificação precoce de sinais de atraso no desenvolvimento infantil e a dificuldade na escolha de instrumentos de avaliação. Os objetivos foram comparar o Denver II e a EDC com uma escala de referência (EEDP) quanto à identificação de crianças com atraso de desenvolvimento, verificar diferença nos resultados considerando gênero dos participantes e averiguar a convergência dos resultados das escalas. Participaram 24 bebês de cinco a onze meses, de ambos os sexos, frequentadores de creches municipais. Os instrumentos foram aplicados individualmente e em sequência pré-definida. A análise estatística revelou que a escala EDC e o Denver II não podem ser considerados semelhantes à escala EEDP. Quanto ao gênero, não houve diferença significativa. Não houve convergência de itens falhos segundo as áreas. Assim, é importante ter cautela na escolha de instrumentos para triagem e obter informações de diferentes fontes sobre o desenvolvimento da criança. Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto2011-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/article/view/726610.1590/S0103-863X2011000100007Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto); v. 21 n. 48 (2011); 51-60 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto); Vol. 21 No. 48 (2011); 51-60 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto); Vol. 21 Núm. 48 (2011); 51-60 1982-43270103-863Xreponame:Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPporhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/article/view/7266/8749Copyright (c) 2017 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto)info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSigolo, Ana Regina LucatoAiello, Ana Lúcia Rossito2012-05-03T16:55:28Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/7266Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/paideiaPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/oai||paideia@usp.br1982-43270103-863Xopendoar:2012-05-03T16:55:28Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development Análisis de instrumentos para la selección del desarrollo infantil Análise de instrumentos para triagem do desenvolvimento infantil |
title |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development |
spellingShingle |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development Sigolo, Ana Regina Lucato desenvolvimento infantil escalas de desenvolvimento triagem desarrollo infantil escalas de desarrollo triaje childhood development development scales triage |
title_short |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development |
title_full |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development |
title_fullStr |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development |
title_full_unstemmed |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development |
title_sort |
Analysis of instruments for screening of childhood development |
author |
Sigolo, Ana Regina Lucato |
author_facet |
Sigolo, Ana Regina Lucato Aiello, Ana Lúcia Rossito |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Aiello, Ana Lúcia Rossito |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Sigolo, Ana Regina Lucato Aiello, Ana Lúcia Rossito |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
desenvolvimento infantil escalas de desenvolvimento triagem desarrollo infantil escalas de desarrollo triaje childhood development development scales triage |
topic |
desenvolvimento infantil escalas de desenvolvimento triagem desarrollo infantil escalas de desarrollo triaje childhood development development scales triage |
description |
The literature shows the importance of early identification of child development delays and difficulty in choosing assessment instruments. The objectives of this study were to compare the Denver II and RDB with a scale of reference (EEDP) concerning children identification with delay of development; to verify difference in the results considering gender of the participants and to investigate results convergence of the scales. Participants were 24 babies with ages ranging from five to 11 months, both sex, attending to local nurseries. The instruments were administered individually and sequentially pre-defined. Statistical analysis revealed that the scale RDB and the Denver II may not be considered similar to the scale EEDP. Considering sex, there was no significant difference. There was no convergence of faulty items in the areas. Therefore, important to be careful on the choice of instruments for screening and obtaining information from different sources on child development. |
publishDate |
2011 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2011-04-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/article/view/7266 10.1590/S0103-863X2011000100007 |
url |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/article/view/7266 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/S0103-863X2011000100007 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/paideia/article/view/7266/8749 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto); v. 21 n. 48 (2011); 51-60 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto); Vol. 21 No. 48 (2011); 51-60 Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto); Vol. 21 Núm. 48 (2011); 51-60 1982-4327 0103-863X reponame:Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) |
collection |
Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto. Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||paideia@usp.br |
_version_ |
1800221832407678976 |