請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/28841
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 廖華芳 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Ling Kuo | en |
dc.contributor.author | 郭郁伶 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T00:25:23Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-08-08 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-08-08 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-07-26 | |
dc.identifier.citation | REFERECES
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Children with Disabilities. Developmental surveillance and screening of infants and young children. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 192-6. 2. Anastasi A & Urbina S. Psychological Testing. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1997: 140-71. 3. Bayley N. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd ed. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. 1993: 191-225. 4. Bierman JM, Connor A, Vaggge M, and Honzik MP. Pediatrician’s assessments of the intelligence of two-year-olds and their mental scores. Pediatrics 1964; 34: 680-90. 5. Blanchard LT, Gurka MJ, and 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: 1202-12. 6. Boyle CA, Decoufle P, and Yeargin-Allsopp M. Prevalence and health impact of developmental disabilities in US children. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 399-403. 7. Capute AJ, Accardo PJ, Vining EP, Rubenstein JE, Walcher JR, Harryman S, and Ross A. Primitive reflex profile. A pilot study. Phys Ther 1978: 58: 1061-5. 8. Chong DS & Karlberg J. Refining the Apgar score cut-off point for newborns at risk. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 53-9. 9. Council on Children With Disabilities, Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Bright Futures Steering Committee and 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. 10. Dawson P, Cohrs M, Eversole C, Frankenburg WF, and Roth ML. Cost effectiveness of screening children in health centers. Public Health Rep 1979; 94: 362-5. 11. Dearlove J & Kearney D. How good is general practice developmental screening? BMJ 1990; 300: 1177-82. 12. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Taiwan, R.O.C. Available at: http://health99.doh.gov.tw/educZone/edu_detail.aspx?Catid=10127. Accessed at 200705. 13. Dobrez D, Sasso AL, Holl J, Shalowitz M, Leon S, and Budetti P. Estimating the cost of developmental and behavioral screening of preschool children in general pediatric practice. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 913-22. 14. Dolan JG & Bordley DR. Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to develop and disseminate guidelines. QRB 1992; 18: 440-7. 15. Domholdt E. Physical Therapy Research: Principles and Applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company. 2000: 180-4, 231-4. 16. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, and Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2005: 7-17, 137-209. 17. Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, and Jaeschke R. A readers’ guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 1043-51. 18. Flanagan DP & Alfonso VC. A critical review of the technical characteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. J Psychoeduc Assess 1995;13:66-90. 19. Flanagan O & Nuallain SO. A study looking at the effectiveness of developmental screening in identifying learning disabilities in early childhood. Ir Med J 2001; 94: 148-50. 20. Frankenburg WK, Emde RN, and Sullivan JW. Early Identification of Children at Risk: An International Perspective. New York: Plenum Press, Inc. 1985: 3-17. 21. Frankenburg WK. Developmental surveillance and screening of infants and young children. Pediatrics 2002; 109: 144-5. 22. Frankenburg WK. Pediatric screening. Adv Pediatr 1973; 20: 149-75. 23. Frankenburg WK. Preventing developmental delays: is developmental screening sufficient? Pediatrics 1994; 93: 586-9. 24. Frankenburg WK. Selection of diseases and tests in pediatric screening. Pediatrics 1974; 54:612-6. 25. Gardner IA, Stryhn H, Lind P, and Collins MT. Conditional dependence between tests affects the diagnosis and surveillance of animal disease. Prev Vet Med 2000; 45: 107-22. 26. Gerstman BB. Screening for disease. In: Epidemiology Kept Simple: An Introduction to Traditional and Modern Epidemiology. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Wiley-Liss, Inc. 2003: 79-92. 27. Glas AS, Lijmer JF, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, and Bossuyt PMM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1129-35. 28. Glascoe FP & Dworkin PH. Obstacles to effective developmental surveillance: Errors in clinical reasoning. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1993; 13:344-9. 29. Glascoe FP & Dworkin PH. The role of patients in the detection of developmental and behavioral problems. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 829-36. 30. Glascoe FP. Parents’ concerns about children’s development: Prescreening technique or screening test? Pediatrics 1997; 99: 522-8. 31. Glascoe FP, Foster EM, and Wolraich ML. An economic analysis of developmental detection methods. Pediatrics 1997; 99: 830-7. 32. Glascoe FP. Collaborating with parents: Using parents’ evaluation of developmental status to detect and address developmental and behavioral problems. TN: Ellsworth & Vandermeer Press LLC. 1998: 12-7. 33. Glascoe FP. Early detection of developmental and behavioral problems. Pediatr Rev 2000; 21: 272-80. 34. Glascoe FP. Are overreferrals on developmental screening tests really a problem? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001; 155: 54-9. 35. Glascoe FP. Screening for developmental and behavioral problems. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2005; 11:173-9. 36. Gurlan EA, Klnnamon DD, Henry JJ, and Walsbren SE. Expanded newborn screening for biochemical disorders: the effect of a false-positive result. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 1915-21. 37. Hauser-Cram P, Warfield ME, Upshur CC, and Weisner TS. An expanded view of program evaluation in childhood intervention. In: Shonkoff JP, and Meisels SJ. Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 2000: 589-610. 38. Hsu CC, Su S, Shao SJ, Lin CC, Soong WT, and Chang C. Chinese Child Developmental Inventory: a tentative normative data. Acta Paediatrica Sinica 1978; 19: 142-57. [in Chinese] 39. Huang HL, Chuang SF, Jong YJ, Yu L, and Shieh YL. Applicability of BSID-II in diagnosing developmental delay at Kaohsiung area. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2000; 16: 197-202. 40. Hunink MGM, Glasziou PP, Siegel JE, Weeks JC, Pliskin JS, Elstein AS, and Weinstein MC. Decision Making in Health and Medicine.5th ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 2006: 128-56, 177-213. 41. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, and Sackett DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, B: What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 1994; 271:703-707. 42. Kaaresen PI, Ronning JA, Ulvund SE, and Dahl LB. A randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of an early-intervention program in reducing parenting stress after preterm birth. Pediatrics 2006; 118: e9-19. 43. Keels KD. Pain chart. Lancet 1948; 2: 6-8. 44. Liao HF & Pan YL. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability for the Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers diagnostic and screening tests. Early Hum Dev 2005; 81: 927-37. 45. Liao HF, Wang TM, Yao G, and Lee WT. Concurrent validity of the Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II in preterm infants. J Formos Med Assoc 2005; 104: 731-7. 46. Liao HF, Yao Grace, Kuo HT et al. The validities of three developmental screening tests for children with developmental delay at three age stages. National Science Council research project. No. of research project: NSC 94-2314-B-002-020. Taipei: National Taiwan University. 2006. 47. Liao HF, Lee SC, Soong WT, Tseng CC, and Su SC. Factors associated with mental outcomes of non-specific mentally retarded children. JPTAROC 1994; 19:29-37. 48. Lowry R. VassarStats. 2001-2007. Available from Vassar College Website: http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/kappa.html. Accessed at 200705. 49. Majnemer A & Rosenblatt B. Reliability of parental recall of developmental milestones. Pediatr Neurol 1994; 10: 304-8. 50. Majnemer A. Benefits of early intervention for children with developmental disabilities. Semin Pediatr Neurol 1998; 5: 62-9. 51. Marwick TH & Cain P. Screening for coronary artery disease. Med Clin North Am 1999; 83: 1375-1403. 52. McCarton CM, Brooks-Gunn J, Wallace IF, Bauer CR, Bennett FC, and Bernbaum JC. Results at age 8 years of early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants. The Infant Health and Development Program. JAMA 1997; 277: 126-32. 53. Meisels SJ. Can developmental screening tests identify children who are developmentally at risk? Pediatrics 1989; 83: 578-85. 54. Moyer VA & Kennedy KA. Understanding and using diagnostic tests. Clin Perinatol 2003; 30:189-204. 55. Muir Gray JA. Testing a screening test. 1994. Available at: http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band5/b5-1.html. accessed at 200705 56. Murphy KR & Davidshofer CO. Psychological Testing. Principles and Applications. 6th ed. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey: Upper Saddle River. 2005. 57. National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. 2001. Available at http://cshcndata.org/DataQuery/DataQueryResults.aspx. 58. Park SH, Goo JM, and Jo CH. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J Radio 2004; 5: 11-8. 59. Parents’ Association for Persons with Intellectual Disablity, ROC. The Performance and Effectiveness of the Reporting and Transferring System of the Early Intervention Services in Taiwan Area. Taipei, 2007. 60. Paul-Dauphin A, Guillemin F, Virion JM, and Briancon S. Bias and precision in visual analogue scales: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 1117-27. 61. Portney LG & Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2000: 84-5. 62. Reid MC, Lachs MS, and Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. JAMA 1995; 274: 645-51. 63. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority and Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1980. 64. Sharkey MA, Palitz ME, Reece LF, Rutherford BL, Akers JP, Alvin BL, and Budenholzer BR. The effect of early referral and intervention on the developmentally disabled infant: evaluation at 18 months of age. J Am Board Fam Pract 1990; 3: 163-170. 65. Sim J & Wright CC. The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 2005; 85: 257-68. 66. Smith RD. The use of developmental screening tests by primary-care pediatricians. J Pediatr 1978; 93: 524-7. 67. Squires JS, Nickel RE, and Eisert D. Early detection of developmental problems: strategies for monitoring young children in the practice setting. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatric 1996; 17: 420-7. 68. Squires J, Bricker D, and Potter L. Revision of a parent-completed developmental screening tool: ages and stages questionnaires. J Ped Psychol 1997; 22: 313-28. 69. Streiner DL & Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 2003. 70. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glaszion P, and Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 3rd ed. London, England: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone. 2005: 67-99. 71. Tjossem TD: Intervention strategies for high-risk infants and young children. Baltimore, University Park Press, 1976. 72. Trehame DA. Parental recall of children’s early development. Eur J Disord Commun 1992; 27: 221-230. 73. Verstappen WH, van der Weijden T, Sijbrandij J, Smeele I, Hermsen J, Crimshaw J, and Grol RP. Effect of a practice-based strategy on test ordering performance of primary care physicians. a randomized trial. JAMA 2003;289: 2407-2412. 74. Wang TM, Su CW, Liao HF, Lin LY, Chou KS, and Lin SH. The standardization of the Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers. Psychol Testing 1998; 45: 19-46. [in Chinese; English abstract] 75. Wang TM. Predictive validity of Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers (CDIIT). Bulletin of Special Education 2005; 29: 1-24. [in Chinese; English abstract] 76. Wang TM & Liao HF. Assessment Accuracy and Cut-off Points of Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers (CDIIT). Bulletin of Special Education 2007; 32:1-11. [in Chinese; English abstract] 77. Washington K, Scott DT, Johnson Da, Wendel S, and Hay AE. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II and children with developmental delays: a clinical perspective. JDBP 1998; 19: 346-349. 78. Whitby LG. Screening for disease: definitions and criteria. Lancet. 1974; 5: 819-821. 79. Wiggins JS. Personality and Prediction: Priniciples of Personality Assessment. 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1980. 80. Wong MK, Chong CK, Wang CM, and Lin HT. Validation of a simplified child developmental screening test in Taiwan. Formosan J Med 1997; 1: 424-39. [in Chinese; English abstract] 81. Wu HY, Liao HF, Yao G Lee WY, Wang TM, and Hsieh JY. Diagnostic accuracy of the motor subtest of Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers (CDIIT) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-Second Edition (PDMS-2) for preschool children. Formos J Med 2005; 9: 312-22. [in Chinese; English abstract] 82. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; Jan: 32-5. 83. 內政部。兒童及青少年福利法施行細則第六條。台北,內政部。2004。 84. 內政部。兒童及青少年福利法第二十條。台北,內政部。2004。 85. 徐澄清、廖佳鶯、余秀麗。嬰幼兒發展測驗。台北市。杏文出版社。1973。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/28841 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 研究背景與目的:以發展篩選工具早期發現發展遲緩兒童以提供早期介入為療育成功關鍵因素之一。在台灣,簡易兒童發展量表(Simplified Child Developmental Screening Test ,簡稱SiCDeST)已被部分臨床人員使用;然其心理計量學相關資料尚未完整,因此本研究目的之一是探討SiCDeST的再測信度與其效度-多層次概率比(multi-level likelihood ratio)。在臨床上,使用單一發展篩選測驗的問題為,發展遲緩低盛行率常導致低陽性預測率,進而造成過度轉介與家長過度擔心;多階段發展偵測是解決上述問題的方法之一。在台灣,SiCDeST與嬰幼兒綜合發展測驗-篩選量表(Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers-Screening Test,簡稱CDIIT-ST)各有其效度資料,但尚無結合此二工具的二階段發展篩選策略之效度資料;此外,總預期效用值(total expected utility,簡稱TEU)也是作為評估篩選策略之決策指標之ㄧ,因此,本研究另一目的是探討結合SiCDeST與CDIIT-ST的二階段發展篩選策略的效度與TEU。方法:受試者:在再測信度研究中,SiCDeST每個年齡層各收集15對親子。在多層次概率比研究與二階段發展篩選策略效度研究中,從本實驗室過去一個長期追蹤的資料檔中,選取測試月齡在6-29個月,將同時具有SiCDeST、CDIIT-ST與小兒科醫師發展結果判斷的資料選出以作分析,共有406份資料(266個嬰幼兒)。在二階段發展篩選策略TEU研究中,25名專業人員填寫發展篩選評估工具效用值問卷,以得到篩選成本及四種篩選結果(真陽性、真陰性、偽陽性、偽陰性)的效用值。過程:家長在一週內填寫兩次SiCDeST以得到再測信度資料。在SiCDeST多層次概率比研究中,我們將SiCDeST原始分數分為小於60、等於60、70、80、90與100分,探討各分數之概率比值。在二階段發展篩選策略效度研究中,分為二階段發展篩選陽性策略(two-stage positive approach)與二階段發展篩選陰性策略(two-stage negative approach)。發展遲緩兒童的診斷由小兒科醫師根據兩個診斷測驗結果(分別是嬰幼兒綜合發展測驗診斷測驗與貝萊氏兒童發展評估量表第二版)分為發展遲緩兒童與發展正常兒童。在二階段發展篩選策略TEU研究中,用5個視覺類比量尺之效用值問卷得到效用值。資料統計: 次方權重卡柏分析(Quadratic weighted Kappa)用來分析再側信度;以列聯表用算出SiCDeST多層次概率比及二階段發展篩選策略之效度指標值。篩選效度指標包含:敏感度(sensitivity)、特異度(specificity)、預測率(predictive value)、概率比 (likelihood ratio)、約登指數(Youden Index)與診斷勝算比(diagnostic odds ratio)。在二階段發展篩選策略TEU研究中,將四種篩選結果的效用值分別乘上該結果的機率,並加上成本的效用值加總,即得TEU。本研究α值定於0.05(雙尾)。結果:SiCDeST的再測信度顯示重要至極盡完美的一致性(κ=0.63-0.94)。SiCDeST各分數的多層次概率比分別為無限大、7.02、9.36、2.40與0.66。也就是說,二階段陽性發展篩選策略的效度為:敏感度18%、特異度98%、陽性預測率27%、陰性預測率96%、陽性概率比9、陰性概率比0.8、約登指數16%與診斷勝算比11.3;而二階段陰性篩選策略的效度則分別為53%、82%、12%、97%、2.9、0.6、35%與4.8。二階段陽性與陰性篩選策略的TEU分別為0.91與0.73。結論:SiCDeST是一個具有信度且可接受效度的發展偵測工具,但其心理計量學特性仍需進一步探討。根據SiCDeST各分數的多層次概率比,臨床專業人員可以作出適當的臨床決策,如6-29個月兒童之SiCDeST分數小於60的兒童要儘早接受介入或治療; 60或70分的兒童要接受診斷性評估; 80分的兒童需要第二次篩選; 90或100分的兒童則安排下次例行之發展監測。從效度與TEU來看,二階段陽性發展篩選策略比二階段陰性發展篩選策略好。然未來必須進一步於不同場域進行更多研究以探究之。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background and Purposes: It is important to apply reliable and valid developmental screening tests for the early intervention of children with developmental delays (DD) in clinics. The Simplified Child Developmental Screening Test (SiCDeST) is a simple and brief screening test used by some clinicians in Taiwan. However, psychometric properties of the SiCDeST are still limited. Based on evidence-based medicine, the multilevel likelihood ratios of a test are more powerful and useful than one single cut-off point. Therefore, first two purposes of this study are to investigate the test-retest reliability and the multi-level likelihood ratios of the SiCDeST. The problem of administering any single screening test in clinic is the low prevalence rate of DD. The two-stage positive or negative screening approaches are methods to increase the post-test probabilities to wait-test-treatment threshold. The third purpose of this study is then to estimate the validity of the two-stage positive/ negative screening approaches. In addition to validity indices, total expected utility (TEU) is used in the decision making for selecting screening stratgies or tests. However, the TEU of the two-stage screening approaches are not well investigated yet. Therefore, the fourth purpose of this study is to investigate the TEU of the two-stage positive/ negative screening approaches. Methods: Participants: Fifteen dyads were enrolled for the test-retest reliability of the 5 age groups of the SiCDeST, i.e. 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. From the dataset of one previous longitudinal study, there were 266 infants who entered that study at 6-18 months and being followed up at 18-36 months. For data analysis, the children who received tests during 6-29.4 month-of-age and had complete data of the SiCDeST, CDIIT-ST as well as pediatrician’s diagnosis, were included in this study. Therefore, totally 406 data sets were included for analysis. Twenty-five professionals were recruited to fill the questionnaire for the utility estimation of 4 screening outcomes (true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative) and cost. Procedure: The SiCDeST was filled by parents twice in the time interval of one week for the test-retest reliability study. For multi-level LRs of the SiCDeST, the raw scores of the SiCDeST were set at less than 60, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100. The scores of the SiCDeST and Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers- Screening Test (CDIIT-ST) were combined for validity analysis in two-stage positive and negative screening approaches. The reference criteria of DD was the diagnosis of one pediatrician who examine or observe the children with the information of two diagnosis tests, the Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers- Diagnosis Test (CDIIT-DT) and Bayley Scales of Infants Development-II (BSID-II). One questionnaire with 5 visual analysis scale (VAS) was developed for estimate the utility values of 4 outcomes and the cost of the screening test. Statistics analysis: Quadratic weighted Kappa was used for the test-retest reliability analysis. Contingency tables were used to calculate the multi-level likelihood ratios of various score of the SiCDeST and validity indices of two-stage screening strategies. Screening validity indices of the two-stage screening approaches include: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratio positive, likelihood ratio negative, Youden index, and diagnostic odds ratio. Median values of utility for 4 outcomes and cost would be obtained from the questionnaire. Total expected utility would be calculated as the sum of the product of probabilities of four outcomes and its associated median utility, plus the utility of the cost. The α level was set at 0.05 (two tailed). Results: The test-retest reliability of the SiCDeST showed substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.63-0.94). The multi-level likelihood ratios of the SiCDeST at scores of < 60, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 were infinity, 7.02, 9.36, 2.40, and 0.66, respectively. Therefore, children with raw scores of the SiCDeST >= 80 were chosen for the validity and TEU analysis of two-stage screening approaches. The validity indices of the two-stage positive screening approaches were sensitivity 18%, specificity 98%, positive predictive value 27%, negative predictive value 96%, positive likelihood ratio 9, negative likelihood ratio 0.8, Youden index 16%, and diagnostic odds ratios 11.3. The validity indices of the two-stage negative screening approach were 53%, 82%, 12%, 97%, 2.9, 0.6, 35%, and 4.8, respectively. The TEU of the two-stage positive/ negative screening approaches were 0.91 and 0.73, respectively. Conclusions: The SiCDeST is a reliable and acceptable valid surveillance test filled by parents and it can be used in health care settings where the time is limited. However, its psychometric properties need further study. From the results of this study, clinicians may make appropriate decisions base on the multi-level LRs of the SiCDeST. From the results of this study, authors suggest children with raw scores of the SiCDeST < 60 need further intervention, with 60 or 70 need further diagnosis evaluation, of 80 need further second screening test (CDIIT-ST), and of 90 or 100 are arranged for next screening schedule. From the views of validity indices and TEU, two-stage positive screening approach is better than two-stage negative screening approach. Further studies in various setting are needed to clarify the feasibility and validity of the screening approaches before its widespread use. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T00:25:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-R94428003-1.pdf: 1635362 bytes, checksum: 246f33c20476870e9f8c597635f507f1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書……………………………………………………… i
誌謝……………….…………..………………………………………… ii 中文摘要………………………………………………………………… iii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………… vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………1 1.1 Background…………………………………………..........1 1.2 Questions and Purposes…………………………………...3 1.3 Operational Definition…………………………….............4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEWS…………………………….......6 2.1 Prevalence and Early Detection for Children with Developmental Delays…………………………….…...6 2.2 Developmental Screening Tests……………………….......9 2.3 Two-Stage Screening Approaches……………………......18 2.4 Criterion Measure of Developmental Delay……….…….20 2.5 Utility Evaluation for Screening Tests………….….. …...22 CHAPTER 3 METHODS……………………………………………........25 3.1 Participants………………………………………............25 3.2 Measures………………………………………..….........26 3.3 Procedure………………… ……………………….........30 3.4 Data Analysis……………………………………..…......32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS……………………………………..................35 4.1 Test-Retest Reliability of the SiCDeST…………………35 4.2 Multi-Level Likelihood Ratios of the SiCDeST…………………………………………35 4.3 Validities of the Two-Stage Screening Approaches………………………………….......36 4.4 Total Expected Utility of the Two-Stage Screening Approaches…………………....................................38 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS………………………………………….......39 5.1 Test-Retest Reliability of the SiCDeST………………..39 5.2 The Validity of the SiCDeST…………………………..41 5.3 Comparisons of Validities and the Total Expected Utility of the Two-Stage Screening Approaches..................43 5.4 Limitations and Further Studies……………………….46 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………….49 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………..50 TABLES…………………………………………………………………....59 FIGURES………………………………………………………………......71 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………….......75 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 二階段發展篩選策略對於發展遲緩嬰幼兒之效度與預期效用之分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Validity and Expected Utility of the Two-Stage Screening Approaches for Infants and Toddlers with Developmental Delays | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 95-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 宋維村,李旺祚,姚開屏,楊銘欽 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 多階段篩選測驗,兒童,信度,效度,發展遲緩障礙,效用理論, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Multiphasic Screening,Child,Reliability,Validity,Developmental Delay Disorders,Utility Theory, | en |
dc.relation.page | 77 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-07-27 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 物理治療學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 物理治療學系所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.6 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。