ABSTRACT
A literatura mostra a importância da identificação precoce de sinais de atraso no desenvolvimento infantil e a dificuldade na escolha de instrumentos de avaliação. Os objetivos foram comparar o Denver II e a EDC com uma escala de referência (EEDP) quanto à identificação de crianças com atraso de desenvolvimento, verificar diferença nos resultados considerando gênero dos participantes e averiguar a convergência dos resultados das escalas. Participaram 24 bebês de cinco a onze meses, de ambos os sexos, frequentadores de creches municipais. Os instrumentos foram aplicados individualmente e em sequência pré-definida. A análise estatística revelou que a escala EDC e o Denver II não podem ser considerados semelhantes à escala EEDP. Quanto ao gênero, não houve diferença significativa. Não houve convergência de itens falhos segundo as áreas. Assim, é importante ter cautela na escolha de instrumentos para triagem e obter informações de diferentes fontes sobre o desenvolvimento da criança.
The literature shows the importance of early identification of child development delays and difficulty in choosing assessment instruments. The objectives of this study were to compare the Denver II and RDB with a scale of reference (EEDP) concerning children identification with delay of development; to verify difference in the results considering gender of the participants and to investigate results convergence of the scales. Participants were 24 babies with ages ranging from five to 11 months, both sex, attending to local nurseries. The instruments were administered individually and sequentially pre-defined. Statistical analysis revealed that the scale RDB and the Denver II may not be considered similar to the scale EEDP. Considering sex, there was no significant difference. There was no convergence of faulty items in the areas. Therefore, important to be careful on the choice of instruments for screening and obtaining information from different sources on child development.
La literatura muestra la importancia de la identificación temprana de signos de retraso en el desarrollo del niño y la dificultad en la elección de instrumentos de evaluación. El objetivo fue comparar el Denver II y la EDC con una escala de referencia (EEDP) cuanto a la identificación de los niños con retraso en el desarrollo; verificar la diferencia en los resultados, teniendo en cuenta el género de los participantes e investigar la convergencia de los resultados de las escalas. Participaron 24 bebés con edades entre cinco y once meses, de ambos sexos, que iban a guarderías municipales. Los instrumentos fueron administrados individualmente o en secuencia predeterminada. El análisis estadístico mostró que la escala de EDC y el Denver II no puede considerarse similar a la escala EEDP. En cuanto al sexo, no hubo diferencia significativa. No hubo convergencia de los puntos malogrados según las áreas. Por lo tanto, es importante ser cuidadoso en la elección de los instrumentos de selección y obtener informaciones procedentes de diferentes fuentes sobre el desarrollo del niño.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child Development , Development Indicators , TriageABSTRACT
O objetivo deste trabalho é apresentar as principais escalas de avaliação atuais que observam as aquisições neuromotoras, identificando as semelhanças e diferenças quanto a sua metodologia. Foram revisados artigos de 1980 a 2003, sendo observadas escalas de triagem de desenvolvimento como a Milani-Camparetti Development Screening Test e o Teste Seletivo de Desenvolvimento de Denver II. Outras escalas avaliaram a função neuromotora: Movement Assessment of Infant (MAI), Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP), Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) e Gross Motor Performance Measure (GMPM), Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT), Peabody Development Motor Scales. A literatura refere ainda escalas voltadas para o diagnóstico do desenvolvimento, mais abrangentes, que avaliam, além das funções neuromotoras, as funções mentais e o comportamento, como o Programa de Desenvolvimento de Gesell, as Bayley Scales of Infant Development II, a Escala de Desenvolvimento do Comportamento da Criança: o primeiro ano de vida e a Postural and Fine Movement Assessment of Infant. Existem, portanto, várias escalas para analisar a função neuromotora em diferentes idades, e cabe ao pesquisador selecionar e conhecer de forma cuidadosa a que melhor interage com a proposta metodológica de sua pesquisa.
The proposal of this study was to report current scales for the assessment of the neuromotor development, identifying similarities and differences related to their methodology Papers from 1980 to 2003 on the following scales were reviewed, and the Milani-Camparetti Development Screening Test and the Denver II Developmental Screening Test were studied. Other scales evaluated neuromotor function, such as Movement Assessment of Infants, Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP), Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) e Gross Motor Performance Measure (GMPM), Harris Infant Neotomotor Test (HINT), and Peabody Development Motor Scales. Other scales evaluated the development of the behavior motor and mental functions, such as Gesell Developmental Program, Bayley Scales of Infant Development II, Escala de Desenvolvimento do Comportamento da Criança: o primeiro ano de vida, and the Postural and Fine Movement Assessment of Infant. Therefore, there are lots of scales that analyze the neoromotor function in different ages, and it is the researcher's responsibility to select and to know thoroughly the best scale that interacts with the methodological proposal of his research.
Subject(s)
Humans , Infant , /methods , Psychomotor Performance , InfantABSTRACT
Objective: To revise the Griffith Mental Development Scales and establish the norm being suited to the Chinese local conditions. Methods: The standardized sample consisted of 2022 children aged 0 to 7 years old was collected in a stratified and random way according to city rank, age, sex, paternal occupations. Each subject was tested individually and filled in a form. Results: The total sample had better representation. The mean of GQ was about 100, and the distribution of GQ is normal. Item analysis indicated that the item difficulty was about 0.5 and discrimination was from 0.62 to 0.78. A few orders of items were revised. The scorer reliability was 0.953. The test-retest reliability was 0.948. The correlation coefficients were 0.481 to 0.854 among the sub-scales or between sub-scales and General DQ. The result of exploratory factor analysis had three factors. The ratio of variance was 79.8%.Conclusion:Griffith Mental Development Scales have ideal reliability and validity.