Validity of The Warner Initial Developmental Evaluation of Adaptive and Functional Skills (WIDEA-FS): a daily activity criterion checklist for infants and toddlers.

BACKGROUND: The Warner Initial Developmental Evaluation of Adaptive and Functional Skills (WIDEA-FS) is a 50-item, criterion-specified questionnaire that assesses a child's adaptive skills in everyday context and can be used in high-risk follow-up settings to identify risk for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Our aim was to validate the WIDEA-FS by comparing a sample of typically developing children to children with special health needs and to compare results to the Capute Scales, which include domains of including both the Cognitive Adaptive Test (CAT) and the Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale (CLAMS). METHODS: Six hundred and sixty children (typically developing and having special healthcare needs) aged 0-36 months completed the WIDEA-FS, the CAT, and the CLAMS assessments. RESULTS: Children with special health needs scored significantly lower on the WIDEA than those with typical development. WIDEA-FS subscales were significantly associated with the CAT (WIDEA-FS self-care 0.87, social cognition 0.89) and the CLAMS (WIDEA-FS communication 0.96, social cognition 0.92) tests. CONCLUSIONS: The WIDEA-FS has concurrent validity with the CAT and CLAMS and construct validity in that children with special health needs have significantly poorer performance on the WIDEA-FS than children with typical development. IMPACT: The WIDEA-FS demonstrated both construct validity and concurrent validity with the Capute Scales, including the Cognitive Adaptive Test (CAT) and the Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale (CLAMS). This is the first study to validate the use of the WIDEA-FS in children with typical development and children with special healthcare needs. The WIDEA-FS is a quick and valid checklist that can be used to assess neurodevelopmental functioning during daily activities in typically developing children and those at risk for neurodevelopmental differences.

Claims data linked to hospital registry data enhance evaluation of the quality of care of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Complete treatment data is central to evaluation and improvement of cancer care quality. Cancer registries vary in completeness of radiation (RT), chemotherapy (CT), and hormone therapy (HT) data. Administrative claims from health payers may supplement these registries. This study assesses the ability to link private payer claims to the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) and the extent of additional treatment data identified in claims. METHODS: Claims for patients with breast cancer surgery from one payer in Western New York (WNY) were matched with NCDB for participating hospitals for 2001-2003 using available identifiers (reporting hospital, gender, birth date, ZIP code). Claims were analyzed for breast and axillary surgery, RT, CT, and HT, and compared with treatment recorded in the NCDB. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy women had claims for breast cancer surgery and 439 (91%) matched to the NCDB. Seventeen had duplicate/incomplete records. Non-matches included cases with surgery for cancer recurrence. Among 422 evaluable cases, stage was 0: 9%; I: 49%; II: 33%; III: 7%; and IV: 2%. Claims and registry were highly concordant for surgery. Registry identified RT, CT, and HT in 38%, 47%, 18%, respectively, of treatment reported in claims. Claims also provided information on drugs used and treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB can be matched with private payer claims using available identifiers. Registry data in this convenience sample of hospitals did not include a substantial fraction of outpatient data identified by claims. Private payer claims may help enhance the completeness of NCDB treatment information.