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

Autor/inn/en	Abdoola, Shabnam; Swanepoel, De Wet; Van Der Linde, Jeannie
Titel	A Scoping Review on the Use of the Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status and PEDS: Developmental Milestones Screening Tools
Quelle	In: Journal of Early Intervention, 45 (2023) 3, S.203-226 (24 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Abdoola, Shabnam) ORCID (Swanepoel, De Wet)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1053-8151
DOI	10.1177/10538151221091202
Schlagwörter	Screening Tests; Identification; Child Development; Early Intervention; Referral; At Risk Persons; Cultural Differences; Test Validity; Developmental Delays; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Questionnaires; Foreign Countries; United States; Canada; Europe; Australia; South Africa; Iran; Serbia; Israel; Singapore; New Zealand; Bhutan; Thailand; Ukraine; Ages and Stages Questionnaires + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Screening-Verfahren; Identifikation; Identifizierung; Kindesentwicklung; Risikogruppe; Kultureller Unterschied; Testvalidität; Entwicklungsverzögerung; Fragebogen; Ausland; USA; Kanada; Europa; Australien; Südafrika; Süd-Afrika; Republik Südafrika; Südafrikanische Republik; Serbien; Singapur; Neuseeland
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01