Abstract
AIMS—To evaluate a parental questionnaire as a means of providing outcome measures for a multicentre randomised controlled trial of treatment for post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation. METHODS—The parents of 88 survivors were sent a questionnaire before a paediatric assessment at the age of 30 months. The parents' responses to individual questions taken mainly from the Griffiths' mental development scales and their perception of the child's ability to see and hear were compared with the paediatric findings. A model, based on the parents' responses to particular questions, allowed the categorisation of the children as normal, impaired, moderately or severely disabled; this was compared with similar categorisation based on the full paediatric assessment. RESULTS—Agreement on items concerning gross motor function ranged between 81 and 99%, concerning dressing between 77 and 80%, concerning feeding between 91 and 99%, and concerning language between 85and 93%. Similar proportions of children were identified as disabled by the parents (60%) and by the paediatrician (66%). Of 29 children who had developmental quotients less than 70, parents identified 28 as disabled, 18 of them as severely disabled. They were not so good at identifying children with impairments without functional loss. CONCLUSIONS—Further work is required but there is sufficient encouragement from the results to pursue this methodology further for use in comparing groups in randomised trials.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (156.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Amiel-Tison C., Stewart A. Follow up studies during the first five years of life: a pervasive assessment of neurological function. Arch Dis Child. 1989 Apr;64(4 Spec No):496–502. doi: 10.1136/adc.64.4_spec_no.496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brennan P., Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ. 1992 Jun 6;304(6840):1491–1494. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coplan J. Parental estimate of child's developmental level in a high-risk population. Am J Dis Child. 1982 Feb;136(2):101–104. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1982.03970380013003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- EPIDEMIOLOGY of cancer. Br Med J. 1958 Jul 12;2(5088):99–100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Frankenburg W. K., Fandal A. W., Thornton S. M. Revision of Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire. J Pediatr. 1987 Apr;110(4):653–657. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(87)80573-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McCormick M. C., Athreya B. H., Bernbaum J. C., Charney E. B. Preliminary observations on maternal rating of health of children: data from three subspecialty clinics. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(4):323–329. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90139-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rosenbaum P., Saigal S., Szatmari P., Hoult L. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales as a summary of functional outcome of extremely low-birthweight children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1995 Jul;37(7):577–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1995.tb12046.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sonksen P. M. The assessment of 'vision for development' in severely visually handicapped babies. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl. 1983;157:82–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1983.tb03936.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sonnander K. Parental developmental assessment of 18-month-old children: reliability and predictive value. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1987 Jun;29(3):351–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1987.tb02489.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wariyar U. K., Richmond S. Morbidity and preterm delivery: importance of 100% follow-up. Lancet. 1989 Feb 18;1(8634):387–388. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91764-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]