The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Developmental Screening—Evaluation of an m-Health Version of the Parents Evaluation Developmental Status Tools
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Developmental delays are more prevalent in low-income countries and access to developmental screening is severely limited. INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated an m-Health version of a standard developmental screening tool, Parents Evaluation Developmental Status (PEDS) and PEDS:Developmental Milestones (PEDS:DM) for use by community health workers (CHWs) in terms of (1) correspondence with conventional paper-based testing by a speech language pathologist (SLP) and (2) inter-rater reliability compared to an SLP. METHOD: CHWs were trained in a primary healthcare (PHC) setting to administer the newly developed smartphone application version of the PEDS tools. One SLP and two CHWs recruited 207 caregivers who were attending a baby wellness clinic. Caregivers were tested by one CHW using the smartphone application of the PEDS tools; a qualified SLP simultaneously recorded and scored the PEDS tools on the same participants. RESULTS: High positive (100%) and negative correspondence (96%) was found between the paper-based PEDS tools and the smartphone application PEDS tools and between the SLP and CHW. Almost perfect (Cohen's Kappa) inter-rater agreement between conditions was demonstrated (κ = 0.873 to κ = 0.961). CONCLUSION: Outcomes of the smartphone application, operated by a CHW, corresponded closely to the gold standard PEDS tools operated by a health professional. Trained CHWs can conduct accurate developmental screening using the smartphone version of the PEDS tools.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Community health workers are also seen as users of apps, web-based platforms, social media, and digital sensory data aimed at supporting them in service delivery.
“CHWs are also seen as users of apps [47,82,83,150] and web-based platforms [12,48,63], social media [84,146], and digital sensory data [144] aimed at supporting CHWs in service delivery.”
LMIC face many challenges in measuring and supporting child development, particularly in rural areas.
“The literature further indicates that LMIC face many challenges in measuring and supporting child development, particularly in rural areas [27,82].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 46
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Conatser P, 2013, Palaestra, 23, 37
- LynnD, NewtonHB, Rae-GrantAD. The 5-minute neurology consult, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012 : 164–165.
- GlascoeFP and RobertshawNS. PEDS' Developmental milestones a tool for surveillance and screening professionals manual, 2nd ed. USA: Ellsworth & Vandermeer Press, LLC. 2010 : 1–177.
- Hussein SY, 2015, J Telemed Telecare, 0, 1
- BernardHR. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 2nd ed. USA: SAGE Publications, 2012 : 133.
- WilliumE, WagnerIII. Using IBM ® SPSS ® statistics for research methods and social science statistics, 5th ed. California: SAGE Publications, 2014 : 1–5.
- Gwet L, 2014, Handbook of inter-rater reliability, 4th Edition: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters
- Tsolekile LP, 2014, Afr J Prm Health Care Fam Med, 6, 693
Metadata
- Authors
- Maleka, B. K., Van Der Linde, J., Glascoe, F. P., & Swanepoel, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Pretoria (ZA)
- Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Venue
- Telemedicine and e-Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1013-1018
- ISSN
- 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-3669
- OpenAlex
- W2411928763
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 3.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Keywords
- developmental screening, mobile health, Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status, community health workers, mobile application, inter-rater reliability, developmental delay, primary care, low-income countries, speech-language pathology
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Community Health Workers, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Mass Screening, Primary Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Caregivers, Mobile Applications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
