Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
Volume 109, Issue 3 , Pages 209-218, March 2010

Selecting a Cutoff Point for a Developmental Screening Test Based on Overall Diagnostic Indices and Total Expected Utilities of Professional Preferences

  • Hua-Fang Liao

      Affiliations

    • School and Graduate Institute of Physical Therapy, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Physical Therapy Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Ling-Yee Cheng

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Wu-Shiun Hsieh

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Ming-Chin Yang

      Affiliations

    • Graduate Institute of Health Care Organization Administration, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Dr Ming-Chin Yang, Room 637, 17 Xuzhou Road, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 12 January 2009; received in revised form 18 June 2009; accepted 1 July 2009.

Article Outline

Background/Purpose

A cutoff point in a test with sounded validity and professional preferences can help to make an accurate clinical decision. This study aimed to determine a cutoff point between two strategies for a developmental screening checklist (referred to as Taipei II). Cutoff point A was set as one or more item failed and cutoff point B was set as two or more items failed or one or more marked item failed.

Methods

This study was based on the total expected utilities of professional preferences and overall diagnostic indices. A self-administered questionnaire was developed to collect the estimated utility from professionals involved in early childhood interventions (n = 81) regarding four screening outcomes (probabilities of true positive, false positive, true negative, or false negative) and costs. The total expected utilities were calculated from the probabilities of four screening outcomes and utility values.

Results

The diagnostic odds ratio was higher for strategy B (695 and 209, respectively) than that of strategy A (184 and 150, respectively) when using the Taipei II on children under 3 years of age and age 3 and over. Strategy B also had a higher median total expected utilities score than strategy A (0.78 vs. 0.72 for children < 3 and 0.76 vs. 0.67 for children ≥ 3).

Conclusion

If only one cutoff point can be chosen, the authors suggest that clinicians should choose cutoff point B when using the Taipei II for screening. However, two cutoff points of Taipei II, a combination of strategy A and B, can also be used clinically.

Key Words:  child , developmental delay disorders , screening , Utility theory

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Shoemaker OS , Saylor CF , Erickson MT . Concurrent validity of the Minnesota child development inventory with high-risk infants . J Pediatr Psychol . 1993;18:377–388
  2. Bierman JM , Connor A , Vagge M , et al.   Pediatricians' assessments of the intelligence of 2-year-olds and their mental test scores . Pediatrics . 1964;34:680–690
  3. Brenneman SK . Assessment and testing of infant and child development . In:  Tecklin JS editors. Pediatric Physical Therapy . 3rd ed.. USA, Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1999;p. 28–70
  4. Anatasi A , Urbina S . In: Psychological Testing . 7th ed.. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997;p. 48–145
  5. Hunink M , Glasziou P , Siegel J , et al.   In: Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values . UK, Cambridge: University Press; 2001;p. 61–213
  6. Baxter P . Normality and abnormality . Dev Med Child Neurol . 2006;48:867
  7. Portney LG , Watkins MP . In: Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice . 2nd ed.. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000;p. 79–110
  8. Drummond MF , Sculpher MJ , Torrance GW , et al.   In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes . 3rd ed.. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2005;p. 7–17 97–209
  9. Wiggins JS . In: Personality and prediction: principles of personality assessment . Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1973;p. 223–274
  10. Muir Gray JA . Testing a screening test . Available at http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band5/b5-1.html 1994; [Date accessed: May 1, 2007]
  11. Taipei City Developmental Checklist for Preschoolers . Available at http://www.tpscfddc.gov.tw/medicine/check.htm [Date accessed: January 10, 2009]
  12. Liao HF , Yang MC , Cheng LY , et al.   The cost of the two cutoff strategies of the Taipei City Developmental Screening Checklist for Preschoolers 2nd version . Formos J Med . 2009;13:9–22 [In Chinese]
  13. Keels KD . Pain chart . Lancet . 1948;2:6–8
  14. Paul-Dauphin A , Guillemin F , Virion JM , et al.   Bias and precision in visual analogue scales: a randomized controlled trial . Am J Epidemiol . 1999;150:1117–1127
  15. Straus SE , Richardson WS , Glaszion P , et al.   In: Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM . 3rd ed.. London: England: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005;p. 67–99
  16. Glas AS , Lijmer JF , Prins MH , et al.   The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance . J Clin Epidemiol . 2003;56:1129–1135
  17. Jaeschke R , Guyatt GH , 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
  18. Liao HF , Wang TM , Yao G , et al.   Concurrent validity of Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers with Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II in preterm infants . J Formos Med Assoc . 2005;104:731–737
  19. Perkins NJ , Schisterman EF . The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve . Am J Epidemiol . 2006;163:670–675
  20. Glascoe FP . Parents' concerns about children's development: prescreening technique or screening test? . Pediatrics . 1997;99:522–528
  21. Aylward G . Conceptual issues in developmental screening and assessment . J Dev Behav Pediatr . 1997;18:340–349
  22. Streiner DL , Norman GR . In: Health Measurement Scales, A Practical Guide to their Development and Use . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1989;p. 20–38
  23. Saaty TL . The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority and Resource Allocation . New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980;
  24. Hauser-Cram P , Warfield ME , Upshur CC , et al.   An expanded view of program evaluation in early childhood intervention . In:  Shonkoff JP ,  Meisels SJ editor. Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention . 2nd ed.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000;p. 487–509

PII: S0929-6646(10)60044-7

doi:10.1016/S0929-6646(10)60044-7

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
Volume 109, Issue 3 , Pages 209-218, March 2010

Article Tools