The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Denver II: A Major Revision and Restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test
Abstract
Since the Denver Developmental Screening Test was first published 23 years ago, it has been utilized worldwide and restandardized in more than a dozen countries. Concerns raised through the years by test users about specific items and features of the Denver Developmental Screening Test, coupled with a need for more current norms, have prompted a major revision and restandardization of the test. For the revision, 336 potential items were administered to more than 2000 children. The average number of times each item was administered was 540. Using regression analysis, composite norms for the total sample and norms for subgroups (based on gender, ethnicity, maternal education, and place of residence), were used to determine new age norms. The final selection of the 125 Denver II items was based on the following criteria: ease of administration and scoring, item appeal to child and examiner, item test-retest and inter-rater reliability, minimal "refusal" scores, minimal "no opportunity" scores, minimal subgroup differences, and a smooth step-like progression of ages at which 90% of children could perform the tasks. The major differences between the Denver II and the Denver Developmental Screening Test are: 1) an 86% increase in language items; 2) two articulation items; 3) a new age scale; 4) a new category of item interpretation to identify milder delays; 6) a behavior rating scale; and 7) new training materials.
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.
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
Cites
A REVIEW OF GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTICS FOR USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS1
LEMESHOW, S., & HOSMER, D. W. (1982) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113284 · Cited by 1,947
Cited by
A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism
Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen, H. G., Green, G., & Stanislaw, H. (2005) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.09.005 · Cited by 600
The impact of maternal depression in pregnancy on early child development
Deave, T., Heron, J., Evans, J., & Emond, A. (2008) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01752.x · Cited by 479
Lingam, R., Hunt, L., Golding, J., Jongmans, M., & Emond, A. (2009) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1770 · Cited by 435
Nelson, H. D., Nygren, P., Walker, M., & Panoscha, R. (2006) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1467 · Cited by 427
Reichow, B., Hume, K., Barton, E. E., & Boyd, B. A. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009260.pub3 · Cited by 350
Metadata
- Authors
- Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Shapiro, H., & Bresnick, B.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 1992-01-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-97
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W1549109732
- Cited by
- 1,111
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Denver II: A Major Revision and Restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.89.1.91
- The paper
- Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Shapiro, H., & Bresnick, B. (1992). The Denver II: A Major Revision and Restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.89.1.91
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.