Construct validity of the Motor Development Scale (MDS)

Abstract Objective Construct validity for the Motor Development Scale (MDS) has not been established. The aim of this study was to examine whether the unidimensional model of MDS would be appropriate for children aged 4 to 6 years-old and provide construct validity for the items concerning this age group in Brazil. Methods A total of 938 children participated in the study (214 4-year-olds, 643 5-year-olds, and 81 6-year-olds). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate construct validity of the MDS using a unidimensional model. Results The CFA for the unidimensional model showed excellent adequacy indices for age 4: χ2(2) = 0.581, p = 0.748, comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.000, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 1.090, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.000 (90% confidence interval [90%CI] = 0.000 to 0.093, close fit [Cfit] = 0.841); age 5: χ2(2) = 2.669, p = 0.263, CFI = 0.993, TLI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.023 (90%CI = 0.000 to 0.085, Cfit = 0.682), weighted root mean square residual (WRMR) = 0.407; and age 6: χ2(9) = 8.275, p = 0.506, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.010, RMSEA = 0.000 (90%CI = 0.000 to 0.118, Cfit = 0.653), WRMR = 0.495. Reliability was good: ω = 0.87 (95%CI = 0.81 to 0.92). Conclusion The proposed unidimensional solution for the MDS provides a concise, parsimonious and reliable way to assess motor development in children aged 4 to 6 years.

Conhecimento médico sobre as imunodeficiências primárias na cidade de São Paulo, Brasil / Medical awareness concerning primary immunodeficiency diseases in the city of São Paulo, Brazil

OBJETIVO: Avaliar o conhecimento médico sobre as imunodeficiências primárias na cidade de São Paulo (SP). MÉTODOS: Um questionário de 14 questões sobre as imunodeficiências primárias foi aplicado a médicos que trabalhavam em hospitais gerais. Uma das questões apresentava 25 situações clínicas que poderiam ou não estar associadas às imunodeficiências primárias, e a porcentagem de respostas apropriadas gerou um indicador de conhecimento. RESULTADOS: Participaram do estudo 746 médicos, dentre os quais 215 pediatras (28,8%), 244 cirurgiões (32,7%) e 287 clínicos (38,5%). Cerca de 70% dos médicos responderam ter aprendido sobre as imunodeficiências primárias na graduação ou na residência médica. O atendimento a pacientes que usam antibióticos com frequência foi relatado por 75% dos médicos, mas apenas 34,1% já haviam investigado algum paciente e 77,8% não conheciam os dez sinais de alerta para as imunodeficiências primárias. O indicador de conhecimento obtido apresentou uma média de 45,72% (±17,87). Apenas 26,6% dos pediatras e 6,6% tanto dos clínicos quanto dos cirurgiões apresentaram indicador de conhecimento de pelo menos 67% (equivalente à resposta apropriada em dois terços das situações clínicas). CONCLUSÃO: Há uma deficiência no conhecimento médico das imunodeficiências primárias na cidade de São Paulo, mesmo entre os pediatras, a despeito do maior contato com o tema nos últimos anos. A melhora da informação sobre as imunodeficiências primárias entre a comunidade médica é um importante passo para o diagnóstico e o tratamento precoces dessas doenças.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate medical knowledge of primary immunodeficiency in the city of São Paulo (SP). METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire about primary immunodeficiency was applied to physicians who worked at general hospitals. One of the questions presented 25 clinical situations that could be associated or not with primary immunodeficiency, and the percentage of appropriate answers generated a knowledge indicator. RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty-six participated in the study, among them 215 pediatricians (28.8%), 244 surgeons (32.7%), and 287 clinicians (38.5%). About 70% of the physicians responded that they had learned about primary immunodeficiency in graduate school or in residency training. Treatment of patients that use antibiotics frequently was reported by 75% dos physicians, but only 34.1% had already investigated a patient and 77.8% said they did not know the ten warning signs for primary immunodeficiency. The knowledge indicator obtained showed a mean of 45.72% (±17.87). Only 26.6% if the pediatricians and 6.6% of clinicians and surgeons showed a knowledge indicator of at least 67% (equivalent to an appropriate answer in two thirds of the clinical situations). CONCLUSION: There is a deficit in medical knowledge of primary immunodeficiency in the city of São Paulo, even among pediatricians, despite having greater contact with the theme over the last few years. The improvement of information on primary immunodeficiency in the medical community is an important step towards the diagnosis and treatment process of these diseases.