The Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT): the creation, validation, and reliability of a tool to assess child development in rural African settings

Melissa Gladstone, Gillian A Lancaster, Eric Umar, Maggie Nyirenda, Edith Kayira, Nynke R van den Broek, Rosalind L Smyth, Melissa Gladstone, Gillian A Lancaster, Eric Umar, Maggie Nyirenda, Edith Kayira, Nynke R van den Broek, Rosalind L Smyth

Abstract

Background: Although 80% of children with disabilities live in developing countries, there are few culturally appropriate developmental assessment tools available for these settings. Often tools from the West provide misleading findings in different cultural settings, where some items are unfamiliar and reference values are different from those of Western populations.

Methods and findings: Following preliminary and qualitative studies, we produced a draft developmental assessment tool with 162 items in four domains of development. After face and content validity testing and piloting, we expanded the draft tool to 185 items. We then assessed 1,426 normal rural children aged 0-6 y from rural Malawi and derived age-standardized norms for all items. We examined performance of items using logistic regression and reliability using kappa statistics. We then considered all items at a consensus meeting and removed those performing badly and those that were unnecessary or difficult to administer, leaving 136 items in the final Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT). We validated the tool by comparing age-matched normal children with those with malnutrition (120) and neurodisabilities (80). Reliability was good for items remaining with 94%-100% of items scoring kappas >0.4 for interobserver immediate, delayed, and intra-observer testing. We demonstrated significant differences in overall mean scores (and individual domain scores) for children with neurodisabilities (35 versus 99 [p<0.001]) when compared to normal children. Using a pass/fail technique similar to the Denver II, 3% of children with neurodisabilities passed in comparison to 82% of normal children, demonstrating good sensitivity (97%) and specificity (82%). Overall mean scores of children with malnutrition (weight for height <80%) were also significantly different from scores of normal controls (62.5 versus 77.4 [p<0.001]); scores in the separate domains, excluding social development, also differed between malnourished children and controls. In terms of pass/fail, 28% of malnourished children versus 94% of controls passed the test overall.

Conclusions: A culturally relevant developmental assessment tool, the MDAT, has been created for use in African settings and shows good reliability, validity, and sensitivity for identification of children with neurodisabilities.

Conflict of interest statement

Rosalind L. Smyth is on the Board of Directors of Public Library of Science (http://www.plos.org/about/board.php).

Figures

Figure 1. Stages in creation of final…
Figure 1. Stages in creation of final MDAT tool.
Draft MDAT I created out of 110 items from the preliminary study with the addition of 52 items from the qualitative study, as well as the modification of some items. Draft MDAT II created after face and content validity with addition of 13 items and eight items removed as well as the modification of some items. Draft MDAT III created after piloting where nine gross motor, six fine motor, nine language, and four social items were added or modified, and one gross motor, five language, and three social items were removed. The Final MDAT tool consisted of 136 items with 34 in each domain having had eight gross motor, nine fine motor, 23 language, and nine social items removed.
Figure 2. Example of the Draft MDAT…
Figure 2. Example of the Draft MDAT III (gross motor domain).
Figure 3. Flow diagram of the recruitment…
Figure 3. Flow diagram of the recruitment of families and children for the MDAT study.
Figure 4. Normal reference values for gross…
Figure 4. Normal reference values for gross motor milestones.
Figure 5. Normal reference values for fine…
Figure 5. Normal reference values for fine motor milestones.
Figure 6. Normal reference values for language…
Figure 6. Normal reference values for language milestones.
Figure 7. Normal reference values for social…
Figure 7. Normal reference values for social milestones.

References

    1. Grantham-McGregor S, Cheung YB, Cueto S, Glewwe P, Richter L, et al. Child development in developing countries 1: developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. Lancet. 2007;369:60–70.
    1. Engle PL, Black MM, Behrman JR, Cabral de Mello M, Gertler PJ, et al. Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. Lancet. 2007;369:229–242.
    1. Grantham-McGregor SM, Ani C. A review of studies on the effect of iron deficiency on cognitive development in children. J Nutr. 2001;131:649S–668S.
    1. Boivin MJ, Green SD, Davies AG, Giordani B, Mokili JK, et al. A preliminary evaluation of the cognitive and motor effects of pediatric HIV infection in Zairian children. Health Psychol. 1995;14:13–21.
    1. Drotar D, Olness K, Wiznitzer M, Schatschneider C, Marum L, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of Ugandan infants with HIV infection: an application of growth curve analysis. Health Psychol. 1999;18:114–121.
    1. Holding PA, Taylor HG, Kazungu SD, Mkala T, Gona J, et al. Assessing cognitive outcomes in a rural African population: development of a neuropsychological battery in Kilifi District, Kenya. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:246–260.
    1. Geisinger K. Cross-cultural normative assessment: translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 2006;6:304–312.
    1. Aina OF, Morakinyo O. Normative data on mental and motor development in Nigerian children. West Afr J Med. 2005;24:151–156.
    1. Richter LM, Griesel R, Rose C. The Bayley scales of infant development: a South African standardization. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1992;22:14–25.
    1. Abubakar A, Holding PA, Van Baar A, Newton CRJC, Van de Vijver FJR. Monitoring psychomotor development in a resource limited setting: an evaluation of the Kilifi Developmental Inventory. Ann Trop Paediatr. 2008;28:217–226.
    1. Gladstone M, Lancaster G, Jones A, Maleta K, Mtitimila E, et al. Can Western developmental screening tools be modified for use in a rural Malawian setting? Arch Dis Child. 2008;93:23–29.
    1. Gladstone M, Lancaster G, Umar E, Nyirenda M, Kayira E, et al. Creation of the MDAT (Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool): a qualitative analysis. Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36:346–353.
    1. Litwin M. How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage Publications; 1995.
    1. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal. 2000;320:50–52.
    1. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:373–374.
    1. Van den Broek N, White SA, Goodall M, Ntonya C, Kayira E, et al. The APPLe study: a randomized, community based, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin for the prevention of preterm birth, with meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000191. doi: .
    1. World Health Organization Department of Nutrition for Health and Development. Principles of care. Training course on the management of severe malnutrition. 2: Annexe B: Weight-for-Height Reference Card. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
    1. National Statistics Office (Zomba, Malawi) Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2004, 0–40, Measure Demographic and Health Survey. Calverton (Maryland): USAORC Macro; 2005.
    1. Frankenburg WK, Dodds JB, Archer P, Shapiro H, Bresnick B. Denver II technical manual. Denver, , Colorado: Denver Developmental Materials Inc; 1990.
    1. Luiz D, Barnard A, Knoesen N, Kotras N, Horrocks S, et al. Griffiths mental development scales - extended revised (GMDS-ER) administration manual. Amersham (Bucks, UK): Association for Research in Child Development; 2004.
    1. Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant development manual. 2nd edition. Orlando, (Florida): The Psychological Association, Harcourt, Brace and Company; 1993.
    1. Sim J, Wright C. Validity, reliability and allied concepts (Chapter 9). Research in health care, concepts, designs and methods. Cheltenham (UK): Nelson-Thornes; 2002.
    1. Grantham-McGregor S, Stewart ME, Desai P. A new look at the assessment of mental development in young children recovering from severe malnutrition. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1978;20:773–778.
    1. Powell CA, Walker SP, Himes JH, Fletcher PD, Grantham-McGregor S. Relationships between physical growth, mental development and nutritional supplementation in stunted children: the Jamaican study. Acta Paediatr. 1995;84:22–29.
    1. Filmer D, Pritchett L. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data - or tears: an application to educational enrolments in states of India. Demography. 2008;38:115–132.
    1. Demographic and Health Survey. DHS comparative reports 6. 2008. The DHS wealth index. 6, Calverton (Maryland): ORC Macro. Available: . Accessed 12 March 2010.
    1. Gwatkin D, Rutstein S, Johnson K, Pande R, Wagstaff A. Socioeconomic differences in health, nutrition and population. health, nutrition and population discussion paper, Washington (D.C.): The World Bank. 2000. Available: . Accessed 10 November 2009.
    1. Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL Guo, National Centre for Health Statistics. 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital Health Stat. 2002;11:1–190.
    1. US Centers for Disease Control. Epi Info version 6. 2008. Available: . Accessed 3 April 2009.
    1. Lemeshow S, Hosmer D. A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115:92–106.
    1. Greenland S. Dose-response and trend analysis in epidemiology: alternatives to categorical analysis. Epidemiology. 1995;6:356–364.
    1. Pastor R, Guallar E. Use of two-segmented logistic regression to estimate change-points in epidemiological studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148:631–642.
    1. Landis R, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
    1. Durkin MS, Davidson LL, Desai P, Hasan ZM, Khan N, et al. Validity of the ten-question screen for childhood disability: results from population based studies in Bangladesh, Jamaica and Pakistan. Epidemiology. 2005;5:283–289.
    1. Abubakar A, Van de Vijver FJR, Van Baar A, Mbonani L, Kalu R, et al. Socioeconomic status, anthropometric status and psychomotor development of Kenyan children from resource-limited settings: a path-analytic study. Early Hum Dev. 2008;84:613–621.
    1. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, et al. Empirical evidence of design related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–1066.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する