Ages and Stages Questionnaire: a global screening scale

Singh, Ajay; Yeh, Chia Jung; Blanchard, Sheresa Boone; Singh, Ajay; Yeh, Chia Jung; Blanchard, Sheresa Boone

doi:10.1016/j.bmhimx.2016.07.008

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Citado por SciELO
Accesos

Links relacionados

Similares en SciELO

Otros
Otros

Permalink

Boletín médico del Hospital Infantil de México

versión impresa ISSN 1665-1146

Bol. Med. Hosp. Infant. Mex. vol.74 no.1 México ene./feb. 2017

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmhimx.2016.07.008

Artículos de revisión

Ages and Stages Questionnaire: a global screening scale

Ages and Stages Questionnaire: una escala de evaluación global

Ajay Singh¹^*

Chia Jung Yeh²

Sheresa Boone Blanchard²

^¹ College of Education and Technology, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New Mexico, USA.

^² Department of Human Development and Family Science, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.

Abstract:

With standardized screening tools, research studies have shown that developmental disabilities can be detected reliably and with validity in children as young as 4 months of age by using the instruments such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire.

In this review, we will focus on one tool, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, to illustrate the usefulness of developmental screening across the globe.

Keywords: Developmental assessment; Developmental screening; Early identification; Early intervention services; Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ); Global screening scale

Resumen:

Mediante el uso de herramientas de evaluación estandarizada, algunos estudios de investigación han demostrado que discapacidades de desarrollo se pueden detectar con fiabilidad y validez en niños desde los 4 meses de edad mediante el uso de los instrumentos estandarizados como el Ages and Stages Questionnaire (Cuestionario de las Edades y Etapas).

Para ilustrar la utilidad de la evaluación del desarrollo infantil a escala global, en este trabajo se revisará la herramienta Ages and Stages Questionnaire.

Palabras clave: Evaluación del desarrollo; Pruebas de desarrollo; Identificación temprana; Servicios de intervención temprana; Cuestionario de Edades y Etapas (ASQ); Tamiz a escala global

1. Introduction

Early childhood is a critical period because the first five years of life are fundamentally important, and early experiences provide the base for brain development and functioning throughout life.¹^,² Early intervention services can provide educational and therapeutic services to children who are at risk.²^,³ Early identification of developmental disabilities is essential for timely remedial intervention and leads to early treatment and ultimately improved long-term outcomes.⁴^-⁶ It has been estimated that only about half of the children with developmental problems are detected before they begin school.⁷^-⁹ Early intervention for children with developmental delay is crucial for enhancing their outcomes.¹⁰^,¹¹ To meet the needs of children during the most important phase of their growth, many countries have established programs and facilities designed to mitigate disabilities.¹² Early intervention (EI) and early childhood special education (ECSE) serve a growing number of young children with developmental delays and their families.¹³^-¹⁷ It has been shown that high-quality EI and ECSE improve children’s developmental outcomes.¹⁸^-²⁰

2. Developmental screening

Optimal development and early identification and detection of delays rely on developmental screening.¹⁹^,²¹ To emphasize the importance of developmental screening in early childhood, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developmental screening policy has included the following strong statement: ‘‘Early identification of developmental disorders is critical to the well-being of children and their families.’’²²^,²³ Developmental screening can be thought of as a preliminary step in the identification of risk at school-age children.²⁴ An effective screening tool should be inexpensive, simple, accurate, valid, reliable, culturally appropriate, easy, and quick to administer.²⁵^-²⁷ To be eligible for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) services, children must qualify in terms of impairment or delay. Approximately 10 to 20% of young children will experience delays²⁸^-³⁰ with significantly higher rates among children who live in poverty.³¹^,³² It has been estimated that only about half of the children with developmental problems are detected before they join the school.³³^-³⁵ Developmental screening and developmental surveillance constitute ongoing processes of monitoring the status of a child by gathering information about his development from multiple sources, including skillful direct observation from parents/caregivers and relevant professionals.²⁶^,³⁶^,³⁷ The AAP and the British Joint Working Party on Child Health Services recommend developmental surveillance as an effective means to identify children with developmental delay.³⁸ Parents’ reports of current attainment of developmental tasks have been shown to be accurate and reliable.³⁹^,⁴⁰ In keeping with recommendations from the American Pediatric Association (USA), National Screening Committee (NSC) UK: Child Health Sub-Group Report 1999 and Best Health for Children (Ireland) consideration should be given to the use of parental reports as a part of the process of assessment.

The AAP⁴¹ policy statement set forth screening algorithms and methods, including those that use standardized parent-completed tools, such as the Parental Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS),³⁹^,⁴⁰ the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ),⁴² and the Child Development Inventories (CDI).⁴³ These have the benefit of good psychometric properties (70-80% specificities and sensitivities), and require much less time than direct developmental assessment by a professional. A parent-completed screening questionnaire can decrease costs and increase accuracy, and parents can report successfully at regular intervals.¹⁹^,⁴⁴^,⁴⁵

Developmental screening identifies those who are in need of further evaluation for eligibility for specialized services.⁴⁶^-⁴⁸ Eligibility assessment assists in identifying the nature of the delay and connecting children and families to appropriate services and supports. Several screening tests have been recommended for accurate ongoing developmental screening, including the PEDS, CDI, ASQ. The ASQ will be highlighted in the review as a preferred screening test that works well in a variety of screening settings.

3. Ages and Stages Questionnaire

The Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) is a parent-completed questionnaire that may be used as a general developmental screening tool. The ASQ was designed and developed by J. Squires and D. Bricker⁴²^,⁴⁹^,⁵⁰ at the University of Oregon and can be completed by parents in 12-18 minutes. The ASQ-3 is a parent reported initial level developmental screening instrument consisting of 21 intervals, each with 30 items in five areas: (i) personal social, (ii) gross motor, (iii) fine motor, (iv) problem solving, and (v) communication for children from 2-66 months. In most cases, these questionnaires accurately identify young children who are in need of further evaluation to determine if they are eligible for early intervention services.⁴²^,⁵⁰ The ASQ is cost-effective and widely used in the United States and other countries.⁵¹^-⁵³ The ASQ has been translated into several languages, such as Spanish, French, Dutch, Chinese, Norwegian, Hindi, Persian, and Turkish. Furthermore, the number of international studies on its psychometric properties with diverse cultural environments is increasing (e. g., Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Ghana, India, Iran, Korea, Lebanon, Netherland, Norway, Republic of Macedonia, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey). It has excellent psychometric properties, test-retest reliability of 92%, sensitivity of 87.4% and specificity of 95.7%. Validity has been examined across different cultures and communities across the world.⁵¹^-⁵⁴ The ASQ-3 is designed to be an in-depth general screening instrument with a reading level from fourth to eighth grade and illustrations assist in providing a clear, user-friendly format. The ASQ is available in several languages, including Turkish, Norwegian, Dutch, Persian, Arabic, English, Hindi, French, Thai, Korean, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Another advantage of the ASQ is its flexibility. Evidence has shown that the ASQ is very useful in a wide variety of settings: home, doctors’ office, head starts, early intervention units, preschools, early childhood, health clinics, and teen parenting programs. The ASQ can be completed by parents/caregivers independently or with the assistance of professionals or administered by a trained professional who is familiar with the child. Scores are normed to indicate whether children are developing in an age-appropriate manner.

Psychometric parameters of the ASQ have been examined based on completion of 18,000 respondents.⁴² Evidence shows that the ASQ is an accurate, cost-effective, parent-friendly instrument for screening and monitoring of preschool children. In addition, it is recommended for early detection of autism by the Joint Committee on Screening and Diagnosis of Autism as well as for general developmental follow-up and screening and developmental surveillance in office settings. Furthermore, research shows that the ASQ has been successfully used for follow-up and assessment of premature and at-risk infants and children in the public health,⁵⁵^,⁵⁶ and follow-up of infants born after assisted reproductive technologies. The ASQ can also be used for teaching medical students in higher education and research about early intervention.⁵⁷ In 2006, the ASQ was used for evaluating the developmental surveillance and screening algorithm by AAP (2001, 2006). Also, the ASQ was used to determine the prevalence of late language emergence and to investigate the predictive status of maternal, family, and child variables. Finally, the ASQ have been translated and used cross-culturally with success.⁵¹^-⁵⁴

4. Comparison or agreement with other developmental instruments

The agreement between the ASQ and Developmental Assessment Scale for Indian Infants (DASII) was studied.⁵⁸^,⁵⁹ The overall sensitivity of the ASQ in detecting delay was 83.3% (n = 200) and specificity was 75.4% (n = 200). All correlations were found to be acceptable (r 0.76-0.80). The sensitivity was higher in the high-risk group whereas specificity was higher in the low-risk group. There was a solid correlation between the domain scores of ASQ and DASII.⁴²^,⁵⁸ Australian studies showed similar results while evaluating the ASQ in a medically at-risk for developmental delay population.⁶⁰^,⁶¹

The agreement between the ASQ and the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition (BDI-2) was also examined.⁶² The ASQ accurately identified and classified children as being eligible or those in need of further evaluation for eligibility status when the classification criterion was the BDI-2, with the ASQ accurately identifying over 90% of eligible children. Interobserver reliability was also strong, with most correlations over 0.70.⁶³

The agreement between the ASQ and pediatrician estimates of development (i.e., Pediatric Developmental Impression (PDI)) was studied in 2007. Findings showed that the agreement between PDI and ASQ was 81.8%. The ASQ results indicated that 78.4% (n = 548) were typically developed, while the PDI indicated that 89.4% (n = 625) were typically developed.⁶⁴

The agreement between the ASQ and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (BSID-II) was studied. The researchers calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the ASQ. They reported a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 87% for children of 24 months of age.⁶⁵

5. ASQ study samples

The ASQ has been used internationally in a variety of settings and contexts. The following tables summarize the overall results: research studies in the United Sates (Table 1);⁶⁶^-⁷² comparison of results from international research studies with those from the United States (Table 2);⁷³^-⁷⁵ international research studies (Table 3);⁷⁶^-¹⁰¹ and some international research studies using the ASQ in different settings (Table 4).

Table 1 ASQ studies in the United States, including original normative studies.

Country	Sample	Year	Age (months)	Keywords	References
USA	224	1995^a	4-48	Infant/Child Monitoring Questionnaires, children, ASQ, families from low-income backgrounds	Bricker et al.⁵⁰
USA	7,000	1997	4-48	Developmental screening, infants at risk, early identification, early intervention	Squires et al.⁴⁹
USA	96	1998	4-36	Early identification, parents, developmental screeners, developmental questionnaire	Squires et al.⁶⁷
USA	112	1999	4-60	Infants, child development, testing, development, diagnosis	Bricker et al.⁶⁶
USA	1,428	2007	12-24	Ages and Stages Questionnaire, developmental delay, developmental screening, developmental surveillance, early intervention, parent-completed screening	Hix-Small et al.⁶⁴
USA	18,000	2009	4-60	Family-friendly, developmental delay, developmental scanner, screen children	Squires et al.⁶⁸
USA	53	2010	24	Child development, developmental screening, diagnostic tests, sensitivity, and specificity	Gollenberg et al.⁶⁵
USA	1,363	2009	12-24	Ages & Stages Questionnaire, developmental delay, developmental screening, developmental surveillance, early intervention	Marks et al.⁶⁹
USA	798	2012	9-30	Culturally sensitive assessments, families, young children, Spanish ASQ-3	Pomes⁷⁰
USA	2,103	2013	< 30	Child development, primary care, randomized controlled trial, screening, urban	Guevara et al.⁷¹
USA	26	2013	4-48	Developmental screening, developmental delay, neurocognitive delay, Ages and Stages Questionnaires-3^® (ASQ-3)	Quigg et al.⁷²

^a Formerly called the Infant/Child Monitoring Questionnaires (series of 11 questionnaires designed to be completed by parents at 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 48 months; each questionnaire contains 30 items).

Table 2 ASQ International research results compared with those in the United States.

Country	Sample	Year	Age (months)	References
USA and Canada	67	2009	2.5-12.5	Westcott et al.⁷³
USA and Norway	1,341	2004	4-60	Janson and Squires⁷⁴
USA, Norway, Spain (Galicia), Korea, Iran	34-1,380	2013	4-60	Vameghi et al.⁵¹
Guatemala, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia	1,050	2011	3-4	Krebs et al.⁷⁵

Table 3 International ASQ research studies.

Country	Sample	Year	Age (months)	References
Australia	167	2001	12-48	Skellern et al.⁶¹
Australia	55	2008	12-14	Lindsay et al.⁶⁰
Brazil	45,640	2013	6-60	Filgueiras et al.⁷⁶
Canada	317	2006	18	Rydz et al.⁷⁷^,⁷⁸
Canada	236	2012	12-24	Simard et al.⁷⁹
Chile	306	2013	8-30	Schonhaut et al.⁸⁰
China	269	2010	3-31	Yao et al.⁸¹
China	519	2012	3-66	Bian et al.⁵
Denmark	230	2006	26-27 weeks	Plomgaard et al.⁸²
Denmark	298	2012	9-21	Østergaard et al.⁸³
Ecuador	283	2007	3-61	Handal et al.⁸⁴^,⁸⁵
France	703	2011	24	Flamant et al.⁸⁶
France	339	2011	12, 36	Troude et al.⁸⁷
Ghana	330	2013	3-5	Bello et al.⁸⁸
India	200	2012	4-24	Juneja et al.⁵⁸
India	422	2013	12-36	Kvestad et al.⁸⁹
India*	100	2014	4-24	Gulati et al.
Iran	100	2013	4-60	Vameghi et al.⁵¹
Japan	240	2013	2-69	Hashimoto et al.⁹⁰
Korea	3,220	2008	4-60	Heo et al.⁵³
Korea	129	2010	8-39	Kim and Kim⁹¹
Korea	226	2011	4-60	Ga and Kwon⁹²
Lebanon	733	2013	4-60	Charafeddine et al.⁹³
Mexico	2,843	2012	14-59	Angeles et al.⁹⁴
Netherlands	927	2011	32-49	Kerstjens et al.⁹⁵
New Zealand	1,848	2010	> 48	Wills et al.⁹⁶
Norway	2,392	2003	4-60	Janson⁹⁷
Republic of Macedonia	100	2014	4-24	Vladimir et al.
South Africa	65	2011	6	Silva⁹⁸
Spain	222	2008	24	Eixarch et al.⁹⁹
Spain	615	2011	4-42	Sarmiento-Compos et al.⁵²
Taiwan	112	2006	36	Tsai et al.¹⁰⁰
Thailand	267	2009	24-36	Saihong⁵⁴
Turkey	978	2010	3-72	Kapci et al.¹⁰¹
UK	2,046	2007	12-60	Yu et al.⁵⁶

* Ongoing research.

Table 4 Comparative results of ASQ at different ages among samples from different countries.

ASQ (months)	Sample	N	Communication	Gross motor	Fine motor	Problem solving	Social-personal
ASQ (months)	Sample	N	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
24-35	Ecuador	52	41.2(13.5)	39.9(10.7)	38.6(14.9)	38.8(12.4)	42.7(12.6)
24	USA	820	50(11)	54(9)	53(8)	51(10)	52(8)
24	Norway	128	53(10)	56(6)	53(8)	50(9)	51(8)
24	Spain	56	44(17)	50(12)	53(11)	48	48(10)
24	Thailand	55	51.27(11.23)	50.18(10.05)	39.73(11.80)	41.55(14.56)	47.82
24	Korea	144	48.9	55.3	48.3	48.8	48.5
24	Iran	554	53.9	52.4	47.4	50.4	51
30	USA	562	56(9)	51(10)	50(12)	51	53(8)
30	Norway	134	57(7)	56(6)	50(13)	52	53(7)
30	Spain	86	54(10)	53(8)	53(11)	49	51(8)
30	Thailand	102	53.77(9.02)	51.52(9.69)	43.28(12.38)	46.67(13.97)	50.25(9.50)
30	Korea	223	53.2	53.4	49.5	51.1	49.8
30	Iran	498	55.3	53.2	47.9	53.7	52.3
36	USA	512	54(8)	55(10)	52(11)	55	53(7)
36	Norway	126	54(7)	56(7)	52(10)	54	53(8)
36	Spain	70	54(9)	52(11)	54(9)	48	51(9)
36	Thailand	110	53.41(9.62)	52.60(11.71)	47.14(13.35)	52.09(9.12)	51.50(7.15)
36-47	Ecuador	44	37.6(12.7)	46.6(11.3)	45.9(11.9)	37.3(10.4)	39.6(11.6)
36	Korea	226	54.8	55.2	53.3	53.2	50.1
36	Iran	548	54.9	53	49.1	53.7	49.6
36	Taiwan	96	53.6(11.6)	52.8(11.4)	46.7(15.8)	49.8(13.1)	52.6(9.7)

6. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and standardization of the ASQ

Results from the ASQ studies in North America (USA), South America (Ecuador), Europe (Norway, Spain), and Asia (Korea, Taiwan) are summarized for selected groups of age. ASQ study results including children’s mean scores and standard deviation are included for studies conducted in Ecuador, USA, Norway, Spain, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, and Iran (Table 3).⁵¹^-⁵⁴^,⁷⁴^,⁸⁴^,⁸⁵^,¹⁰⁰

These samples followed a distribution pattern and very closely resembled the North American, South American, Asian, and European profiles. These results suggest that the ASQ performance did not diverge significantly from performance data collected in any other studies.

To demonstrate the usefulness of developmental screening across the globe, the authors of this paper have reviewed the ASQ as one example of a recommended tool that has a worldwide use for the goal of early detection and identifying developmental disabilities. It is important to promote early detection efforts using a valid and reliable global screening scale to control the healthy children population < 5 years of age. These studies reflect that the ASQ is very useful for early identification of the at-risk population and used to improve the early identification of young children and improve outcomes before disabilities become more established.¹²^,²⁶^,²⁷^,¹⁰² Within only a few years, the ASQ has become widespread and increasingly used worldwide as a parent-completed questionnaire, a global screening scale. International studies yielded standardized parent-completed scores that were effective and comparative across languages and cultures. The ASQ has shown to be reliable and cost-effective as well as correlate well with pediatricians’ and service providers’ assessment.¹⁰² International interest has been building based on demonstrated benefits of the ASQ. Since some of the research studies reported here are ongoing, a number of additional international publications concerning the ASQ can be expected in the near future. Collaboration across the world will further enhance the utility of the ASQ because the establishment of norms from datasets with specified characteristics allows for cross-country comparisons of developmental outcomes in diverse cultures.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest of any nature.

References

1. Block RW, Dreyer BP, Cohen AR, Stapleton FB, Furth SL, Bucciarelli RL. An agenda for children for the 113th Congress: recommendations from the Pediatric Academic Societies. Pediatrics. 2013;131:109-19. [ Links ]

2. Bruder MB. Early childhood intervention: a promise to children and families for their future. Except Child. 2010;76:339-55. [ Links ]

3. Serrano AM, Boavida J. Early Childhood Intervention: the Portuguese pathway towards inclusion. Rev Educ Inclus. 2011;4:123-38. [ Links ]

4. Siller M, Morgan L, Turner-Brown L, Baggett KM, Baranek GT, Brian J, et al. Designing studies to evaluate parent-mediated interventions for toddlers with autism spectrum disorder. J Early Interv. 2014;35:355-77. [ Links ]

5. Bian X, Yao G, Squires J, Hoselton R, Chen CI, Murphy K, et al. Translation and use of parent-completed developmental screening test in Shanghai. J Early Child Res. 2012;10:162-75. [ Links ]

6. Chaudhari S, Kadam S. Ages and Stages Questionnaire-a developmental screening test. Indian Pediatr. 2012;49:440-1. [ Links ]

7. Nair MKC, Russell P, editors. Illingworth’s the development of the infant and the young child: normal and abnormal. New Delhi, India: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013. [ Links ]

8. Glascoe FP, Marks KP. Detecting children with developmental-behavioral problems: the value of collaborating with parents. Psychol Test Assess Model. 2011;53:258-79. [ Links ]

9. Smith LE, Akai CE, Klerman LV, Keltner BR. What mothers don’t know and doctors don’t say: detecting early developmental delays. Infant Ment Health J. 2010;31:455-66. [ Links ]

10. Love JM, Kisker EE, Ross C, Raikes H, Constantine J, Boller K, et al. The effectiveness of early head start for 3-year-old children and their parents: lessons for policy and programs. Dev Psychol. 2005;41:885-901. [ Links ]

11. Scarborough AA, Spiker D, Mallik S, Hebbeler KM, Bailey DB, Simeonsson RJ. A national look at children and families entering early intervention. Except Child. 2004;70:469-83. [ Links ]

12. Lakhan R, Singh A. Early Intervention Tool (EIT) for children with developmental delay: a pilot study. Eur Health Psychol. 2014;16:18-25. [ Links ]

13. Bang KS. Effects of an early nursing intervention program for infants’ development and mother’s child rearing in poverty. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2009;39:796-804. [ Links ]

14. Conlon KE, Strassle CG, Vinh D, Trout G. Family management styles and ADHD: utility and treatment implications. J Fam Nurs. 2008;14:181-200. [ Links ]

15. Kishida Y, Kemp C. A measure of engagement for children with intellectual disabilities in early childhood settings: a preliminary study. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2006;31:101-14. [ Links ]

16. Cooley WC, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Children With Disabilities. Providing a primary care medical home for children and youth with cerebral palsy. Pediatrics. 2004;114:1106-13. [ Links ]

17. Parker-Rees R, Willan J, editors. Early years education. Major themes in education. Volume III. Policy and Practice in Early Education and Care. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis; 2006. [ Links ]

18. McCormick MC, Brooks-Gunn J, Buka SL, Goldman J, Yu J, Salganik M, et al. Early intervention in low birth weight premature infants: results at 18 years of age for the Infant Health and Development Program. Pediatrics. 2006;117:771-80. [ Links ]

19. Guralnick MJ. Early intervention for children with intellectual disabilities: current knowledge and future prospects. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2005;18:313-24. [ Links ]

20. Shonkoff JP. Building a new biodevelopmental framework to guide the future of early childhood policy. Child Dev. 2010;81:357-67. [ Links ]

21. Gregoire J, Lucky L. Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Public School Prekindergarten Program for Children with Disabilities. Florida: Florida International University; 2002. Available at: http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=sferc [ Links ]

22. American Academy of Pediatrics; Committee on Children with Disabilities. Developmental surveillance and screening of infants and young children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:192-6. [ Links ]

23. Council on Children with Disabilities; Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics; Bright Futures Steering Committee; Medical Home Initiatives for Children with Special Needs Project Advisory Committee. Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical home: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics. 2006;118:405-20. [ Links ]

24. Meisels SJ. No Easy Answers: Accountability in Early Child-hood. In: Pianta RC, Cox MJ, Snow KL, editors. School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co; 2007. p. 31-47. [ Links ]

25. Macy M, Squires JK, Barton EE. Providing optimal opportunities: structuring practicum experiences in early intervention and early childhood special education preservice programs. Topics Early Child Spec Educ. 2009;28:209-18. [ Links ]

26. Singh A. Parent-completed developmental screening: validity, reliability and utility of the 6-year Ages and Stages Questionnaire. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon; 2015. [ Links ]

27. Singh A. Validity, reliability and utility of the 6-year Ages and Stages Questionnaire. J Spec Educ Rehab. 2015;16:122-3. [ Links ]

28. Bethell C, Reuland C, Schor E, Abrahms M, Halfon N. Rates of parent-centered developmental screening: disparities and links to services access. Pediatrics. 2011;128:146-55. [ Links ]

29. Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA, Cohen RA, Blumberg SJ, Yeargin-Allsopp M, et al. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics. 2011;127:1034-42. [ Links ]

30. Blanchard LT, Gurka MJ, Blackman JA. Emotional, developmental, and behavioral health of American children and their families: a report from the 2003 National Survey of Children’s Health. Pediatrics. 2006;117:e1202-12. [ Links ]

31. Wight V, Chau MM, Aratani Y. Who are America’s poor children? The official story. National Center for Children Poverty. Mailman School of Public Health. Columbia University; 2010. [ Links ]

32. Hoynes HW, Page ME, Stevens AH. Poverty in America. Trends and explanations. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20:47-68. [ Links ]

33. Glascoe FP. Screening for developmental and behavioral problems. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2005;11:173-9. [ Links ]

34. Shattuck PT, Durkin M, Maenner M, Newschaffer C, Mandell DS, Wiggins L, et al. Timing of identification among children with an autism spectrum disorder: findings from a population-based surveillance study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48:474-83. [ Links ]

35. Singh A, Yeh CJ, Verma N, Das AK. Overview of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in young children. Health Psychol Res. 2015;3:2115. [ Links ]

36. Squires J, Nickel RE, Eisert D. Early detection of developmental problems: strategies for monitoring young children in the practice setting. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1996;17:420-7. [ Links ]

37. Gilbride KE. Developmental testing. Pediatr Rev. 1995;16:338-45. [ Links ]

38. Garg A, Dworkin PH. Applying surveillance and screening to family psychosocial issues: implications for the medical home. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011;32:418-26. [ Links ]

39. Glascoe FP. Evidence-based approach to developmental and behavioural surveillance using parents’ concerns. Child Care Health Dev. 2000;26:137-49. [ Links ]

40. Glascoe FP. Parents’ concerns about children’s development: prescreening technique or screening test? Pediatrics. 1997;99:522-8. [ Links ]

41. Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine; Bright Futures Steering Committee. Recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics. 2008;120:1376, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2901. [ Links ]

42. Squires J, Bricker D. Ages & Stages Questionnaires^®, Third Edition (ASQ- 3^TM). A parent-completed child-monitoring system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2009. [ Links ]

43. Ireton H. Child development inventory manual. Minneapolis: Behavior Science Systems; 1992. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/562e8e0ae4b09db47d931eb9/t/565cd590e4b0c6e18e583427/1448924560903/cdi+manual.pdf [ Links ]

44. Bodnarchuk JL, Eaton WO. Can parent reports be trusted? Validity of daily checklists of gross motor milestone attainment. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2004;25:481-90. [ Links ]

45. Ratner NB, Silverman S. Parental perceptions of children’s communicative development at stuttering onset. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43:1252-63. [ Links ]

46. McLean RJ, Pierson LS, 3rd, Fuqua C. A simple screening protocol for the identification of quorum signal antagonists. J Microbiol Methods. 2004;58:351-60. [ Links ]

47. Yell ML, Drasgow E. Assessment for eligibility under IDEIA and the 2006 regulations. Assess Eff Interv. 2007;32:202-13. [ Links ]

48. Rydz D, Shevell MI, Majnemer A, Oskoui M. Developmental screening. J Child Neurol. 2005;20:4-21. [ Links ]

49. Squires J, Bricker D, Potter L. Revision of a parent-completed developmental screening tool: Ages and Stages Questionnaires. J Pediatr Psychol. 1997;22:313-28. [ Links ]

50. Bricker DD, Squires J, Mounts L. Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ): A parent-completed, child-monitoring system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 1995. [ Links ]

51. Vameghi R, Sajedi F, Kraskian Mojembari A, Habiollahi A, Lornezhad HR, Delavar B. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation and standardization of Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) in Iranian children. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42:522-8. [ Links ]

52. Sarmiento Campos JA, Squires J, Ponte J. Universal developmental screening: preliminary studies in Galicia, Spain. Early Child Dev Care. 2011;181:475-85. [ Links ]

53. Heo KH, Squires J, Yovanoff P. Cross-cultural adaptation of a pre-school screening instrument: comparison of Korean and US populations. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2008;52 Pt 3:195-206. [ Links ]

54. Saihong P. Use of screening instrument in Northeast Thai early childcare settings. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;7:97-105. [ Links ]

55. Chiu SH, DiMarco MA. A pilot study comparing two developmental screening tools for use with homeless children. J Pediatr Health Care. 2010;24:73-80. [ Links ]

56. Yu LM, Hey E, Doyle LW, Farrell B, Spark P, Altman DG, et al. Evaluation of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires in identifying children with neurosensory disability in the Magpie Trial follow-up study. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96:1803-8. [ Links ]

57. Nicol P. Using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire to teach medical students developmental assessment: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-6-29. [ Links ]

58. Juneja M, Mohanty M, Jain R, Ramji S. Ages and Stages Questionnaire as a screening tool for developmental delay in Indian children. Indian Pediatr. 2012;49:457-61. [ Links ]

59. Misra N, Pathak P. Developmental assessment scales for Indian infants (DASII): Manual. Baroda: MS University of Baroda; 1996. [ Links ]

60. Lindsay NM, Healy GN, Colditz PB, Lingwood BE. Use of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire to predict outcome after hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in the neonate. J Paediatr Child Health. 2008;44:590-5. [ Links ]

61. Skellern CY, Rogers Y, O’Callaghan MJ. A parent-completed developmental questionnaire: follow up of ex-premature infants. J Paediatr Child Health. 2001;37:125-9. [ Links ]

62. Pool JL. Parent-completed developmental screening for preschool children: A study of concurrent validity and reliability. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon; 2008. [ Links ]

63. Pool JL, Hourcade JJ. Developmental screening: a review of contemporary practice. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. 2011;46:267-75. [ Links ]

64. Hix-Small H, Marks K, Squires J, Nickel R. Impact of implementing developmental screening at 12 and 24 months in a pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2007;120:381-9. [ Links ]

65. Gollenberg AL, Lynch CD, Jackson LW, McGuinness BM, Msall ME. Concurrent validity of the parent-completed Ages and Stages Questionnaires, 2^nd Ed. with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II in a low-risk sample. Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36:485-90. [ Links ]

66. Bricker DD, Squires J, Mounts L. Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ): A parent-completed, child-monitoring system. Paul H. Brookes; 1999. [ Links ]

67. Squires JK, Potter L, Bricker DD, Lamorey S. Parent-completed developmental questionnaires: effectiveness with low and middle income parents. Early Child Res Q. 1998;13:345-54. [ Links ]

68. Squires J, Bricker D, Twombly E, Potter L. ASQ-3 user’s guide. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2009. [ Links ]

69. Marks K, Hix-Small H, Clark K, Newman J. Lowering developmental screening thresholds and raising quality improvement for preterm children. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1516-23. [ Links ]

70. Pomes MP. Examination of the Spanish translation of a developmental screening instrument. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon; 2012. [ Links ]

71. Guevara JP, Gerdes M, Localio R, Huang YV, Pinto-Martin J, Minkovitz CS, et al. Effectiveness of developmental screening in an urban setting. Pediatrics. 2013;131:30-7. [ Links ]

72. Quigg TC, Mahajerin A, Sullivan PD, Pradhan K, Bauer NS. Ages and Stages Questionnaires-3 developmental screening of infants and young children with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2013;30:235-41. [ Links ]

73. Westcott McCoy S, Bowman A, Smith-Blockley J, Sanders K, Megens AM, Harris SR. Harris Infant Neuromotor Test: Comparison of US and Canadian normative data and examination of concurrent validity with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. Phys Ther. 2009;89:173-80. [ Links ]

74. Janson H, Squires J. Parent-completed developmental screening in a Norwegian population sample: a comparison with US normative data. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93:1525-9. [ Links ]

75. Krebs NF, Mazariegos M, Chomba E, Sami N, Pasha O, Tshefu A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of meat compared with multimicronutrient-fortified cereal in infants and toddlers with high stunting rates in diverse settings. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96:840-7. [ Links ]

76. Filgueiras A, Pires P, Maissonette S, Landeira-Fernandez J. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian-adapted version of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire in public child daycare centers. Early Hum Dev. 2013;89:561-76. [ Links ]

77. Rydz D, Srour M, Oskoui M, Marget N, Shiller M, Birnbaum R, et al. Screening for developmental delay in the setting of a community pediatric clinic: a prospective assessment of parent-report questionnaires. Pediatrics. 2006;118:e1178-86. [ Links ]

78. Rydz D, Srour M, Oskoui M, Marget N, Shiller M, Birnbaum R, et al. Screening for developmental delay in the setting of an ambulatory pediatric clinic. Neuropediatrics. 2006;37 Suppl 1:PS4_2_3. [ Links ]

79. Simard MN, Luu TM, Gosselin J. Concurrent validity of ages and stages questionnaires in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e108-14. [ Links ]

80. Schonhaut L, Armijo I, Schönstedt M, Alvarez J, Cordero M. Validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires in term and preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e1468-74. [ Links ]

81. Yao GY, Bian XY, Squires J, Wei M, Song W. Cutoff scores of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Chinese for screening infants and toddlers. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2010;48:824-8. [ Links ]

82. Plomgaard AM, Hansen BM, Greisen G. Measuring developmental deficit in children born at gestational age less than 26 weeks using a parent-completed developmental questionnaire. Acta Paediatr. 2006;95:1488-94. [ Links ]

83. Østergaard KK, Lando AV, Hansen BM, Greisen G. A Danish reference chart for assessment of psychomotor development based on the Ages & Stages Questionnaire. Dan Med J. 2012;59:A4429. [ Links ]

84. Handal AJ, Lozoff B, Breilh J, Harlow SD. Effect of community of residence on neurobehavioral development in infants and young children in a flower-growing region of Ecuador. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:128-33. [ Links ]

85. Handal AJ, Lozoff B, Breilh J, Harlow SD. Sociodemographic and nutritional correlates of neurobehavioral development: a study of young children in a rural region of Ecuador. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2007;21:292-300. [ Links ]

86. Flamant C, Branger B, Nguyen The Tich S, de La Rochebrochard E, Savagner C, Berlie I, et al. Parent-completed developmental screening in premature children: a valid tool for follow-up programs. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20004. [ Links ]

87. Troude P, Squires J, L’Hélias LF, Bouyer J, de La Rochebrochard E. Ages and Stages Questionnaires: feasibility of postal surveys for child follow-up. Early Hum Dev. 2011;87:671-6. [ Links ]

88. Bello AI, Quartey JN, Appiah LA. Screening for developmental delay among children attending a rural community welfare clinic in Ghana. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:119. [ Links ]

89. Kvestad I, Taneja S, Kumar T, Bhandari N, Strand TA, Hysing M. The assessment of developmental status using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 in nutritional research in North Indian young children. Nutr J. 2013;12:50. [ Links ]

90. Hashimoto K, Sakamoto N, Takekoh M, Ikeda N, Kato K, Honda M, Tamai S, et al. Validity of the Family-Rated Kinder Infant Development Scale (KIDS) for children. Pediatr Therapeut. 2013;3:153. [ Links ]

91. Kim MS, Kim JK. Assessment of children with developmental delay: Korean-Ages and Stages Questionnaires (K-ASQ) and Bayley Scales of Infant Development Test II (BSID-II). J Korean Child Neurol Soc. 2010;18:49-57. [ Links ]

92. Ga HY, Kwon JY. A comparison of the Korean-Ages and Stages Questionnaires and Denver Developmental Delay Screening Test. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35:369-74. [ Links ]

93. Charafeddine L, Sinno D, Ammous F, Yassin W, Al-Shaar L, Mikati MA. Ages and Stages Questionnaires: adaptation to an Arabic-speaking population and cultural sensitivity. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2013;17:471-8. [ Links ]

94. Angeles G, Gadsden P, Galiani S, Gertler P, Herrera A, Kariger P, et al. The impact of daycare on maternal labour supply and child development in Mexico. 3ie Impact Evaluation Report 6. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). 2014. Available at: http://www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer_public/2014/04/02/ie_6-gustavo-mexico_daycare-top.pdf [ Links ]

95. Kerstjens JM, de Winter AF, Bocca-Tjeertes IF, ten Vergert EM, Reijneveld SA, Bos AF. Developmental delay in moderately preterm-born children at school entry. J Pediatr. 2011;159:92-8. [ Links ]

96. Wills R, Matthews KM, Hedley C, Freer T, Morris H. Improving school readiness with the Before School Check: early experience in Hawke’s Bay. N Z Med J. 2010;123:47-58. [ Links ]

97. Janson H. Influences on participation rate in a national Norwegian child development screening questionnaire study. Acta Pædiatr. 2003;92:91-6. [ Links ]

98. Silva ML. A comparison of objective, standardised parent-administered questionnaires to that of subjective screening practices for the early detection of developmental delay in at-risk infants. Research report for the degree of Master of Science in Medicine, Child Health and Neurodevelopment. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. 2010. [ Links ]

99. Eixarch E, Meler E, Iraola A, Illa M, Crispi F, Hernandez-Andrade E, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in 2-year-old infants who were small-for-gestational-age term fetuses with cerebral blood flow redistribution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:894-9. [ Links ]

100. Tsai HLA, McClelland MM, Pratt C, Squires J. Adaptation of the 36-month Ages and Stages Questionnaire in Taiwan: results from a preliminary study. J Early Interv. 2006;28:213-25. [ Links ]

101. Kapci EG, Kucuker S, Uslu RI. How applicable are Ages and Stages Questionnaires for use with Turkish children? Topics Early Child Spec Educ. 2010;30:176-88. [ Links ]

102. Singh A, Squires J, Yeh CJ, Heo KH, Bian H. Validity and reliability of the developmental assessment screening scale. J Family Med Prim Care. 2016;5:124-8. [ Links ]

Received: February 28, 2016; Accepted: July 07, 2016

^* Corresponding author: Ajay Singh, e-mail: ajaysingh363@gmail.com.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License