Article: A Multimedia Child Developmental Screening Checklist: Design and Validation

Background: Identifying disability early in life confers long-term benefits for children. The Taipei City Child Development Screening tool, second version (Taipei II) provides checklists for 13 child age groups from 4 months to 6 years. However, the usability of a text-based screening tool largely depends on the literacy level and logical reasoning ability of the caregivers, as well as language barriers caused by increasing numbers of immigrants.

Objective: The objectives of this study were to (1) design and develop a Web-based multimedia version of the current Taipei II developmental screening tool, and (2) investigate the measurement equivalence of this multimedia version to the original paper-based version.

Methods: To develop the multimedia version of Taipei II, a team of experts created illustrations, translations, and dubbing of the original checklists. The developmental screening test was administered to a total of 390 primary caregivers of children aged between 4 months and 6 years.

Results: Psychometric testing revealed excellent agreement between the paper and multimedia versions of Taipei II. Good to excellent reliabilities were demonstrated for all age groups for both the cross-mode similarity (mode intraclass correlation range 0.85-0.96) and the test-retest reliability (r=.93). Regarding the usability, the mean score was 4.80 (SD 0.03), indicating that users were satisfied with their multimedia website experience.

Conclusions: The multimedia tool produced essentially equivalent results to the paper-based tool. In addition, it had numerous advantages, such as it can facilitate active participation and promote early screening of target populations.

Clinicaltrial: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02359591; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02359591 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6l21mmdNn).

Citing Articles

Developmental screening tools for identification of children with developmental difficulties in high-income countries: a systematic review.

Cibralic S, Hawker P, Khan F, Lucien A, Mendoza Diaz A, Woolfenden S Front Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2025; 2():1074004.

PMID: 39816889 PMC: 11732054. DOI: 10.3389/frcha.2023.1074004.

The Acceptability and Effectiveness of Web-Based Developmental Surveillance Programs: Rapid Review.

Baker J, Kohlhoff J, Onobrakpor S, Woolfenden S, Smith R, Knebel C JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020; 8(4):e16085.

PMID: 32324149 PMC: 7206511. DOI: 10.2196/16085.

The Design and Validation of a Child Developmental e-Screening System.

Cheng H, Chang H, Huang P, Ju Y, Chen L, Tseng K J Med Syst. 2017; 41(4):67.

PMID: 28283996 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-017-0701-z.

References

1.

Kripalani S, Robertson R, Love-Ghaffari M, Henderson L, Praska J, Strawder A . Development of an illustrated medication schedule as a low-literacy patient education tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 66(3):368-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.020. View

2.

Carroll A, Bauer N, Dugan T, Anand V, Saha C, Downs S . Use of a computerized decision aid for developmental surveillance and screening: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014; 168(9):815-21. PMC: 10157652. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.464. View

3.

Sices L, Feudtner C, Mclaughlin J, Drotar D, Williams M . How do primary care physicians identify young children with developmental delays? A national survey. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2003; 24(6):409-17. DOI: 10.1097/00004703-200312000-00002. View

4.

Liao H, Yao G, Chien C, Cheng L, Hsieh W . Likelihood ratios of multiple cutoff points of the Taipei City Developmental Checklist for Preschoolers, 2nd version. J Formos Med Assoc. 2014; 113(3):179-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2011.10.005. View

5.

Dearlove J, Kearney D . How good is general practice developmental screening?. BMJ. 1990; 300(6733):1177-80. PMC: 1662891. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.300.6733.1177. View

6.

Martin A, Darlow B, Salt A, Hague W, Sebastian L, Mann K . Identification of infants with major cognitive delay using parental report. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011; 54(3):254-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04161.x. View

7.

Pyke-Grimm K, Kelly K, Stewart J, Meza J . Feasibility, acceptability, and usability of web-based data collection in parents of children with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011; 38(4):428-35. DOI: 10.1188/11.ONF.428-435. View

8.

Radecki L, Sand-Loud N, OConnor K, Sharp S, Olson L . Trends in the use of standardized tools for developmental screening in early childhood: 2002-2009. Pediatrics. 2011; 128(1):14-9. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-2180. View

9.

Wynd C, Schmidt B, Schaefer M . Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003; 25(5):508-18. DOI: 10.1177/0193945903252998. View

10.

Palfrey J, Singer J, Walker D, Butler J . Early identification of children's special needs: a study in five metropolitan communities. J Pediatr. 1987; 111(5):651-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(87)80238-x. View

11.

Hamilton S . Screening for developmental delay: reliable, easy-to-use tools. J Fam Pract. 2006; 55(5):415-22. View

12.

Ziviani J, Darlington Y, Feeney R, Rodger S, Watter P . Early intervention services of children with physical disabilities: complexity of child and family needs. Aust Occup Ther J. 2014; 61(2):67-75. DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12059. View