The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accuracy of the Denver-II in Developmental Screening
Abstract
One of the oldest and best known developmental screening tests was recently restandardized and revised as the Denver-II. Because it was published without evidence of its accuracy, the present study was undertaken with 104 children between 3 and 72 months of age attending one of five day-care centers. To determine the presence of developmental problems, children were administered individual measures of intelligence, speech-language, achievement, and adaptive behavior. A second psychological examiner, blind to the outcome of the diagnostic battery, administered the Denver-II. Developmental problems including language impairments, learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, and/or functional developmental delay were found in 17% of the children. The Denver-II identified correctly 83% and thus had high rates of sensitivity. However, more than half the children with normal development also received abnormal, questionable, or untestable Denver-II scores. Thus the test had limited specificity (43%) and a high overreferral rate. The alternative scoring method, categorizing questionable/untestable scores as normal, caused sensitivity to drop to 56% although specificity rose to 80%. Since neither scoring method produced acceptable levels of accuracy, an effort was made to locate the sources of accuracy and inaccuracy within the test. Only items in the language domain were modestly helpful in discriminating children with and without difficulties. The findings suggest that the authors of the Denver-II need to engage in further development of the instrument including revising scoring criteria and item placement in relation to children's ages. In the interim, test users should employ screening tests which are more accurate such as the Minnesota Inventories or the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test.
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
Cited by
Sand, N., Silverstein, M., Glascoe, F. P., Gupta, V. B., Tonniges, T. P., & O'Connor, K. G. (2005) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1809 · Cited by 344
Self-citationHow Do Primary Care Physicians Identify Young Children with Developmental Delays? A National Survey
SICES, L., FEUDTNER, C., MCLAUGHLIN, J., DROTAR, D., & WILLIAMS, M. (2003) · Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · doi:10.1097/00004703-200312000-00002 · Cited by 176
Developmental assessment of children
Bellman, M., Byrne, O., & Sege, R. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e8687 · Cited by 171
Marlow, M., Servili, C., & Tomlinson, M. (2019) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.2033 · Cited by 164
Lejarraga, H., Menendez, A. M., Menzano, E., Guerra, L., Biancato, S., Pianelli, P., Del Pino, M., Fattore, M. J., & Contreras, M. M. (2008) · Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00897.x · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Glascoe, F. P., Byrne, K. E., Ashford, L. G., Johnson, K. L., Chang, B., & Strickland, B.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 1992-06-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1221-1225
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W1608692772
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.78
- 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: Accuracy of the Denver-II in Developmental Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.89.6.1221
- The paper
- Glascoe, F. P., Byrne, K. E., Ashford, L. G., Johnson, K. L., Chang, B., & Strickland, B. (1992). Accuracy of the Denver-II in Developmental Screening. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.89.6.1221
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.