Limited evidence of test-retest reliability in infant-directed speech preference in a large preregistered infant experiment.

Test-retest reliability-establishing that measurements remain consistent across multiple testing sessions-is critical to measuring, understanding, and predicting individual differences in infant language development. However, previous attempts to establish measurement reliability in infant speech perception tasks are limited, and reliability of frequently used infant measures is largely unknown. The current study investigated the test-retest reliability of infants' preference for infant-directed speech over adult-directed speech in a large sample (N = 158) in the context of the ManyBabies1 collaborative research project. Labs were asked to bring in participating infants for a second appointment retesting infants on their preference for infant-directed speech. This approach allowed us to estimate test-retest reliability across three different methods used to investigate preferential listening in infancy: the head-turn preference procedure, central fixation, and eye-tracking. Overall, we found no consistent evidence of test-retest reliability in measures of infants' speech preference (overall r = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06,0.25]). While increasing the number of trials that infants needed to contribute for inclusion in the analysis revealed a numeric growth in test-retest reliability, it also considerably reduced the study's effective sample size. Therefore, future research on infant development should take into account that not all experimental measures may be appropriate for assessing individual differences between infants. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: We assessed test-retest reliability of infants' preference for infant-directed over adult-directed speech in a large pre-registered sample (N = 158). There was no consistent evidence of test-retest reliability in measures of infants' speech preference. Applying stricter criteria for the inclusion of participants may lead to higher test-retest reliability, but at the cost of substantial decreases in sample size. Developmental research relying on stable individual differences should consider the underlying reliability of its measures.

Validity of self-reported migraine in adolescents and children.

OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement for migraine day between self-report and diagnostic guidelines for children and adolescents using a headache diary. BACKGROUND: Trial guidelines recommend prospective collection of headache features and adoption of migraine day as an outcome measure, but there is no clear consensus on the definition of migraine day. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from two projects-a prospective cohort study validating a pediatric scale of treatment expectancy and a clinical trial of occipital nerve blocks to treat status migrainosus. Participants completed a text message-based diary for 4 or 12 weeks (depending on treatment), and a detailed headache assessment on a random 20% of headache days. Using this assessment, we determined whether a headache day qualified for migraine or probable migraine, based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3). RESULTS: Of 122 enrolled children and adolescents, 106 (86.9%) completed ≥1 detailed headache assessment (438 entries). We found moderate agreement between self-reported and ICHD-derived migraine day, with a Cohen's Kappa of 0.50 (positive predictive value [PPV]: 0.66; negative predictive value [NPV]: 0.85; correlation: 0.51). Allowing for ICHD-derived probable migraine significantly increased PPV (0.66 vs. 0.94; 95% CI: 0.57-0.74 vs. 0.90-0.97), but decreased NPV (0.85 vs. 0.293; CI: 0.77-0.90 vs. 0.199-0.40), Cohen's Kappa (0.50 vs. 0.237; CI: 0. 389-0.60 vs. 0.139-0.352), and correlation (r = 0.51 vs. 0.302; CI: 0.41-0.61 vs. 0.192-0.41). Pain severity (OR: 5.7; CI: 2.39-13.8), photophobia (OR: 4.1; CI: 1.02-16.6), and phonophobia (OR: 7.5; CI: 1.95-29.3) were significantly associated with participants' perception of migraine. CONCLUSION: We found only moderate agreement between self-reported and ICHD-derived migraine day, suggesting both measures are not equal but may represent overlapping aspects of migraine as a disease. This highlights the difficulty of applying ICHD criteria to individual attacks. We recommend greater methodological transparency in future research to avoid readers conflating both measures.

Development of a text message-based headache diary in adolescents and children.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend diaries in migraine trials for prospective collection of headache symptoms. Studies in other patient populations suggest higher adherence with electronic diaries instead of pen-and-paper. This study examines the feasibility of a text message-based (texting) diary for children and adolescents with headache. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a study validating a pediatric scale of treatment expectancy. We developed a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant texting diary collecting headache characteristics, medication use, and disability with 3-5 core daily questions for 4 or 12 weeks depending on headache treatment. Adherence was incentivized. RESULTS: 93 participants consented to the expectancy study. Five participants opted for a paper diary for follow-up. 88 participants chose the texting diary with 28 4-week and 60 12-week participants. Five participants did not complete the enrollment visit. Of those remaining 83, 89% of 4-week and 93% of 12-week participants responded on at least 80% of days. On average, participants fully completed 88% (4-week cohort) and 90% (12-week) of diary entries. CONCLUSIONS: Text messages are a promising method for collecting patient-reported data. Adherence was similar to that reported for paper diaries in other pediatric migraine trials, but time-stamped entries ensure real-time data collection.