A realist review of digitally delivered child development assessment and screening tools: Psychometrics and considerations for future use

Jelena Komanchuk; Judy L Cameron; Stefan Kurbatfinski; Linda Duffett-Leger; Nicole Letourneau

doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2023.105818

A realist review of digitally delivered child development assessment and screening tools: Psychometrics and considerations for future use

Early Hum Dev. 2023 Aug:183:105818. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2023.105818. Epub 2023 Jun 30.

Authors

Jelena Komanchuk¹, Judy L Cameron², Stefan Kurbatfinski³, Linda Duffett-Leger⁴, Nicole Letourneau⁴

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. Electronic address: jelena.komanchuk1@ucalgary.ca.
² Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
³ Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
⁴ Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

PMID: 37413949
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2023.105818

Abstract

Background: Developmental screening improves the detection of developmental concerns, yet numerous children are not screened/assessed. Remote child developmental tool administration has been utilized to increase screening and assessment accessibility.

Method: We conducted a realist review to: (1) identify existing multi-domain child development assessment and screening tools for children 0-5 years; (2) review psychometric data on their digital (i.e., only administered remotely) administration; and (3) explore contextual factors relevant to their digital administration. We searched APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ERIC to identify tools and papers on their psychometrics. We reference-searched included articles and searched Google for relevant grey literature.

Results: Of 33 multi-domain child development tools identified in objective one, five tools (in five studies) were delivered digitally and compared to traditional (e.g., paper) delivery (i.e., objective two). Studies evaluated within-group equivalence reliability (k = 2) and between-group equivalence (k = 3). Within-group equivalence reliability was established for the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, and domains (e.g., gross motor) of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires 2nd edition (ASQ-2) and Revised Prescreening Denver Questionnaire (R-PDQ). Between group equivalence was demonstrated for Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, 2nd Edition (NEPSY-II) subtests and Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition (Bayley-3) items. In another between group evaluation, web-based and paper versions of the ASQ-2 were deemed generally equivalent. Digital Bayley-3 inter-observer reliability ranged from 0.82 to 1.0. Examiner support, time, tool modifications, family resources, and comfort promotion supported digital administration.

Conclusion: Digitally delivered ASQ-2, R-PDQ, Vineland, and Bayley-3 and NEPSY-II components show promise for equivalence with traditional administration.

Keywords: Child development; Digital data collection; Early childhood; Equivalence reliability; Psychometrics.

Publication types

Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Child
Child Development*
Developmental Disabilities* / diagnosis
Developmental Disabilities* / epidemiology
Humans
Infant
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires