Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sturner, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Green, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sturner, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Green, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Pediatric Psychology 7(3) pp. 295-306, 1982
© 1982 Society of Pediatric Psychology

research-article

An Adaptation of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory for Preschool Developmental Screening1

Raymond A. Sturner2, Sandra G. Funk, Patricia D. Thomas and James A. Green

Duke University Medical Center

2AII correspondence should be addressed to Raymond Sturner, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3890, Durham, North Carolina 27710.

A shortened version of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory (MCDI) was used to screen a countywide population (N = 382) of preschool children, age 52 to 64 months. A subset of 45 items from the general development (GD) scale was employed; MCDI norms were used to choose items expected to be passed by about 90% of 52-month-old children. After screening with the shortened MCDI, a stratified sample of 120 children returned for criterion testing with the Stanford-Binet. The results indicated that the questionnaire items were age discriminating and that scores varied with socioeconomic status. Items most often omitted were those rated difficult for parents to observe. In predicting the Stanford-Binet, the items showed adequate sensitivity (.63) and specificity (.81), with an underreferral rate of 2.8%. The overreferral rate, however, was 17.9%. These indices declined when other criteria such as speech and language or motor assessments were considered in addition to IQ. This abbreviated version of the GD scale of the MCDI could be a useful prescreen or supplement to other developmental data for children of these ages and social classes.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
M. L. Montgomery, C. F. Saylor, N. L. Bell, M. M. Macias, J. M. Charles, and L. D. Pappu Katikaneni
Use of the Child Development Inventory to Screen High-Risk Populations
Clinical Pediatrics, September 1, 1999; 38(9): 535 - 539.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
F. Page Glascoe and K. E. Byrne
The Usefulness of the Developmental Profile-II in Developmental Screening
Clinical Pediatrics, April 1, 1993; 32(4): 203 - 208.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentHome page
P. deAyora and K. R. White
Using the Minnesota Child Development Inventory as a Measure of Developmental Progress with Handicapped Children
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, September 1, 1987; 5(3): 248 - 256.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.