A Multimedia Child Developmental Screening Checklist: Design and Validation

Hsin-Yi Kathy Cheng, Li-Ying Chen, Chih-Hsiu Cheng, Yan-Ying Ju, Chia-Ling Chen, Kevin C Tseng, Hsin-Yi Kathy Cheng, Li-Ying Chen, Chih-Hsiu Cheng, Yan-Ying Ju, Chia-Ling Chen, Kevin C Tseng

Abstract

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://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02359591 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6l21mmdNn).

Keywords: Web-based; child development; disability; multimedia; screening; usability.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart depicting the design stages of the multimedia system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The website interface of the child developmental screening system.
Figure 3
Figure 3
System framework.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Screening checklists for age 24 months (questions 3-5): (a) girl’s version, (b) boy’s version.

References

    1. Dearlove J, Kearney D. How good is general practice developmental screening? BMJ. 1990 May 5;300(6733):1177–1180.
    1. Palfrey J, Singer J, Walker D, Butler J. Early identification of children's special needs: a study in five metropolitan communities. J Pediatr. 1987 Nov;111(5):651–659.
    1. Hamilton S. Screening for developmental delay: reliable, easy-to-use tools. J Fam Pract. 2006 May;55(5):415–422.
    1. 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.
    1. 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 Dec;24(6):409–417.
    1. Halfon N, Olson L, Inkelas M, Mistry R, Sareen H, Lange L. Summary statistics from the National Survey of Early Childhood Health, 2000. Vital Health Stat. 2002;15(3):1–34.
    1. Radecki L, Sand-Loud N, O'Connor K, Sharp S, Olson L. Trends in the use of standardized tools for developmental screening in early childhood: 2002-2009. Pediatrics. 2011 Jul;128(1):14–19. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2180.
    1. Martin AJ, Darlow BA, Salt A, Hague W, Sebastian L, Mann K, Tarnow-Mordi W, Inis Trial Collaborative Group Identification of infants with major cognitive delay using parental report. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012 Mar;54(3):254–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04161.x.
    1. 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 Mar;113(3):179–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2011.10.005.
    1. 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 Sep;168(9):815–821. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.464.
    1. Shimada H, Kitajima M. Why do illustrations promote comprehension of manuals? Jpn J of Educ Psychol. 2008;56(4):474–486. doi: 10.5926/jjep1953.56.4_474.
    1. Kripalani S, Robertson R, Love-Ghaffari MH, Henderson LE, Praska J, Strawder A, Katz MG, Jacobson TA. Development of an illustrated medication schedule as a low-literacy patient education tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jun;66(3):368–377. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.020.
    1. Magner U, Schwonke R, Aleven V, Popescu O, Renkl A. Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learn Instruct. 2014;29:141–152. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.002.
    1. Scheiter K, Schüler A, Gerjets P, Huk T, Hesse F. Extending multimedia research: how do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures. Comput Hum Behav. 2014 Feb;31(1):73–84. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.022.
    1. Höffler T, Leutner D. Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learn Instruct. 2007 Dec;17(6):722–738. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.
    1. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003 Aug;25(5):508–518.
    1. Pyke-Grimm KA, Kelly KP, Stewart JL, Meza J. Feasibility, acceptability, and usability of web-based data collection in parents of children with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011 Jul;38(4):428–435. doi: 10.1188/11.ONF.428-435.
    1. Plass J, Heidig S, Hayward E, Homer B, Um E. Emotional design in multimedia learning: effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learn Instruct. 2014 Feb;29:128–140. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006.
    1. Moreno R, Mayer R. A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. J Educ Psychol. 2000;92(1):117–125. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.117.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren