Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Screening for Developmental Delay in Early Childhood: Problems and Possible Solutions

  • Screening (J Cairney, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Developmental Disorders Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Early identification of children with developmental delay is a longstanding goal in pediatric research and practice, and a large number of screening and assessment tools have been developed to this end. Unfortunately, these measures are problematic: Definitions of “delay” are not consistent, thresholds are somewhat arbitrary, some scoring systems are affected by systematic error, and the natural variability in the timing of development may limit the accuracy they can achieve. Significantly, the ability of early screening to predict longer-term functional problems has proven to be very limited. False positive results are also not harmless, and the effectiveness of early interventions is in some doubt. The benefits of early screening using existing instruments and interventions are therefore doubtful. Some improvements may be possible, however, by making use of more information sources, by using variable thresholds, and by making more rigorous use of cost-benefit analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASQ:

Ages and Stages Questionnaires

PEDS:

Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status measure

BSID:

Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development

References

Papers of Particular Interest, Published recently, Have Been Highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Children With Disabilities. Developmental surveillance and screening of infants and young children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:192–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Bright futures: guidelines for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents (3rd ed.). Elk Grove Village: Author; 2008.

  3. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):497–501. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Assessment, diagnosis and clinical interventions for children and young people with autism spectrum disorders: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (2016). Recommendations on screening for developmental delay. Canadian Medical Association Journal (published online Mar 29, 2016). In this recent evaluation of the evidence for developmental screening, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care concludes that there is insufficient evidence that screening programs improve outcomes among children with developmental delay.

  6. Williams R, Clinton J, Canadian Paediatric Society Early Years Task Force. Getting it right at 18 months: in support of an enhanced well-baby visit. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16(10):647.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Nipissing District Developmental Screen. Available at: http://www.ndds.ca. Accessed 17 Nov 2014.

  8. Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Rooks D, Doroshenk M, Fedewa S, Saslow D, Brawley OW, Wender R. Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):30–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1327–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. King TM, Tandon SD, Macias MM, et al. Implementing developmental screening and referrals: lessons learned from a national project. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):350–60. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Squires J, Bricker D, Potter L. Revision of a parent-completed development screening tool: ages and stages questionnaires. J Pediatr Psychol. 1997;22:313–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brothers KB, Glascoe FP, Robertshaw NS. PEDS: developmental milestones—an accurate brief tool for surveillance and screening. Clin Pediatr. 2008;47(3):271–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 3rd ed. PsychCorp, Harcourt Assessment Inc: San Antonio, Tex; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Newborg J. Battelle Developmental Inventory. 2nd ed. Chicago: Riverside; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frankenburg WK, Dodds J, Archer P, Shapiro H, Bresnick B. The DENVER II: a major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Pediatrics. 1992;89:91–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Committee on Children With Disabilities. Developmental surveillance and screening of infants and young children. Pediatrics. 2001;108(1):192–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kazdin AE. Evidence-based assessment for children and adolescents: issues in measurement development and clinical application. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2005;34(3):548–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Willis BH. Spectrum bias—why clinicians need to be cautious when applying diagnostic test studies. Fam Pract. 2008;25:390–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lindstrom K, Bremberg S. The contribution of developmental surveillance to early detection of cerebral palsy. Acta Pediatr. 1997;86:736–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Henderson S, Sugden D, Barnett A. The movement assessment battery for children-2. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Assessment; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Boyd R. What a difference a day makes: age-related discontinuities and the Battelle Developmental Inventory. J Early Interv. 1989;13:114. doi:10.1177/105381518901300202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Veldhuizen S, Rodriguez C, Wade TJ, et al. Misclassification due to age grouping in measures of child development. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(3):220–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D, et al. Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics. 2005;116(2):333–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson S, Marlow N. Developmental screen or developmental testing? Early Hum Dev. 2006;82:172–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Murray GK, Jones PB, Kuh D, et al. Infant developmental milestones and subsequent cognitive function. Ann Neurol. 2007;62:128–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Smetana GW. Rethinking "abnormal" blood pressure: what is the value? J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(7):678–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Moons KGM, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, et al. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ. 2009;338. doi:10.1136/bmj.b375.

  29. Bellman M, Byrne O, Sege R. Developmental assessment of children. BMJ. 2013;346:e8687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Council on Children With Disabilities, Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Bright Futures Steering Committee and Medical Home Initiatives for Children with Special Needs Project Advisory Committee. Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical home: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):405–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2010). Head Start Impact Study: Final Report. Washington, DC.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Scott Veldhuizen

Authors
  1. Scott Veldhuizen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Veldhuizen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Scott Veldhuizen declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Screening

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veldhuizen, S. Systematic Screening for Developmental Delay in Early Childhood: Problems and Possible Solutions. Curr Dev Disord Rep 3, 184–189 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-016-0090-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-016-0090-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation