Denver Il DOM, INC. TEST ITEM 75 May pass by report Footnote no. Denver II developmental milestones. DENVER II TEST FORM – ENGLISH. July 8, 2015 September 4, 2015. Please complete the following for access to the free. Denver Developmental Materials, Inc.© 2016.

Results: Most of the children (24, 68.6%) had test results compatible with normal development, while 10 (28.6%) had a “risk” test and 1 (2.9%) was “untestable” due to refusal to carry out the proposed activities. As to the items evaluated in each area, 7 children (20%) showed a developmental “delay” (when the child does not perform the activity passed by more than 90% of the children of his/her age) and 18 (51%) required “attention” (when the child does not perform the activity passed by 75 to 90% of the children of his/her age), predominantly in the language area. Conclusions: Although most of the children (68.6%) presented normal development in the test, we point out that in the remaining children (31.4%), the number of items classified as “delay” or “attention”, and tests classified as “risk” or “untestable” suggest impairment in neuropsychomotor development. We underscore the importance of the routine administration of the DDST-R for an early detection of developmental disabilities and thus establish primary prevention programs. Keywords: Child development; Primary health care; Developmental disabilities.

Stage of development Children n% Infant 5 14.3 Toddler 19 54.3 Pre-school 11 31.4 Total 35 100 *Infant: children aged up to 12 months; **Toddler: children aged from one to three years; ***Pre-school: children aged from three to six years. Data collection occurred after approval of the research project by the Scientific Commission of the Nursing School of Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and by the institutional Research Ethics Committee (CAAE: 0160.0.028.000-08); authorization was also obtained from the administration of the outpatient clinic where the data were collected. The data were collected in the second semester of 2008, by means of DDST-R administration, and the materials used were: a red woolen pompom with a thread; a rattle with a narrow handle; raisins; a small bell; ten 2.5-cm 3 colored wooden blocks; a clear pot with narrow opening; a tennis ball; a red pencil; a small plastic doll with a toy baby bottle; a plastic mug with handles and blank paper ( ).

Data were quantitatively analyzed using descriptive statistics, and expressed as absolute numbers and percentages, in the format of tables, considering the criteria of test result interpretation. Each DDST-R item is correlated with the age and percentage of the standard population that performed one given item or behavior. Each of the items evaluated is classified as.

Normal: when the child performs an activity expected for their age or does not perform an activity passed by less than 75% of the children of the same age; –. Attention: when the child does not perform or refuses to perform an activity passed by 75 to 90% of the children of the same age; –. Delay: when the child does not perform or refuses to perform an activity passed by more than 90% of the children of the same age (, –, ). According to the interpretation of the items, the test can be classified as: normal, when the child has no developmental “delay”, or requires attention, at most; risk, when the child's test has two or more items classified as requiring attention and/or one or more items showing developmental “delay”; and untestable, when the child “refuses” to perform the activity of one or more items with the age line completely to the right (i.e., activity passed by almost all children) or of more than one item with the age line in the area where 75 to 90% of the children pass that item (,, ). RESULTS The development of the majority of the children assessed (24; 68.5%) was compatible with their age range; the tests of 10 children (28.6%) was classified as “risk”, and only 1 (2.9%) was “untestable”. Initially considering the number of children with “delays”, in a total of seven, we verified that these delays were more frequent in the “fine motor adaptive” category (3; 42%), followed by the “personal-social” (2; 28.6%) and “language” (2; 28.6%) categories. As for the number of delays identified, in a total of 10, half (5; 50%) occurred in the language area ().

Areas/categories Children presenting “delay” Test items identified as “delay” n% n% Personal-social 2 28.6 2 20 Fine motor adaptative 3 42. Ekey Control4 Driver. 9 3 30 Language 2 28.6 5 50 Gross motor - - - - Total 7 100 10 100 *Delay occurs when the child does not perform or refuses to perform an activity that is conducted by over 90% of children at the same age. As regards the activities classified as requiring “attention”, in a total of 21 identified in 18 children, we verified that the language area was also the most frequently affected, both in relation to the number of children (7; 38.9%), and to the number of test items (9; 42.9%), as shown in. Areas/categories Children presenting “attention” Test items identified as “attention” n% n% Personal-social 6 33.3 7 33.3 Fine motor adaptative 5 27.8 5 23.8 Language 7 38.9 9 42.9 Gross motor - - - - Total 18 100 21 100 *Attention occurs when the child does not perform or refuses to perform an activity that is conducted by 75 to 90% of children at the same age. In relation to the only child (2.9%) who refused to perform some items of the test, we observed a slight predominance in items of the language area (2; 50%), as shown in. CONCLUSIONS In view of the results, we concluded that the majority of the children showed normal development; 1/4 had a “risk” test, and only 1 child was “untestable”. The highest number of items pointing to “delays” or “attention” among the activities performed by the children occurred in the language area.

Considering the number of children with “delays” or “attention”, the language area had a high prevalence of “attention” items, whereas more children showed “delays” in the fine motor adaptive area.

As part of the Healthy Child Programme (HCP) in the UK, children have a health and development review at the age of 2-2.5 years []. This is carried out by the health visitor.

It may be done in the child's home, the baby clinic, the children's centre or the child's nursery. This may now be an integrated review, combining what was previously an Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) 2-year progress review (carried out by childcare providers), with the 2.5-year HCP review []. In England, the responsibility for these early reviews was transferred from NHS England to local authorities in 2015 []. This article covers the HCP two-year development check in England. The review is identical in principle in the rest of the UK but the specifics and terminology are available as follows: • Northern Ireland: health and development review at 2-2.5 years, a home visit by health visitors as part of the Healthy Child, Healthy Future programme of 2010 [].

• Scotland: 27- to 30-month child health review guidance 2012, as part of the Scottish Child Health Programme published in 2005 [, ]. • Wales: 27-month check as part of the Healthy Child Wales Programme (0-7 years) published in 2016 []. Aims The two-year review aims to optimise child development and emotional well-being and reduce inequalities in outcome - specifically []: • Improvement in emotional and social well-being. • Improvement in learning and speech and language development. • Early detection of, and action to address: • Developmental delay.

• Ill health. • Growth impairment. • High immunisation rates and reduction in rates of preventable disease. • Prevention of obesity. • Promotion of health-enhancing behaviours such as active play and well-balanced diet. • Early detection of psychosocial issues and action to address them: • Poor parenting. • Disruptive family relationships and domestic violence.

• Mental health issues. • Substance misuse. • Provide information and advice about: • Dental care. • Accident prevention. • Sleep management. • Toilet training. • Behavioural management.

The process [] It is crucial to engage the parent(s) or carers and to discuss their views and concerns. Parents who voice concerns about their child's development are usually right []. Parents or carers must feel the process is useful, that their concerns have been listened to and addressed and that advice they have received is relevant and helpful. Invitations to the two-week check can be sent by letter, email, text or birthday card.

Communication should be culturally appropriate; both parents should be encouraged to be involved where relevant and possible. Appointment times and venues must be flexible to enable a high response rate. Agreement of a shared agenda at the start, prioritising discussion of parental concerns and open-ended questions may all be helpful at the start of the appointment. It may be helpful to offer a validated parental questionnaire to elicit concerns in advance of the appointment, to be discussed at the check.

Appropriate questionnaires to use are the Parental Evaluation of Development Status (PEDS) or the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) [, ]. From April 2015, NHS England mandated use of a standard questionnaire and specified ASQ-3 should be used; in addition, from October 2016 the ASQ:SE-2 (ASQ for social and emotional development) should be used []. Resources for a British form of the questionnaire have been funded and made available for health visitors to use. This health and development check is designed to be flexible and non-prescriptive so it can be adapted to the needs and priorities of the locality and individual.

Assessment of development [, ] Under the EYFS monitoring, progress is assessed in the following areas at age 2 years by a childcare provider, and a written summary provided for the parent(s) and/or carers []: • Communication and language. • Physical development. • Personal, social and emotional development. • Understanding the world. • Creativity (expressive art and design).

This overlaps with the review which forms part of the HCP delivered by the health visiting team. At the 2- to 2.5-year review, development is assessed by answers on the ASQ-3 and by health visitors' observations. There are different forms to correspond to the appropriate age at which the questionnaire is being applied. Assessment includes the following areas but will vary slightly with exact age. Gross motor skills • Walking and running without falling. • Ability to walk up or down at least two steps.

• Kicking a ball. Fine motor skills • Ability to make a stack of seven or more blocks. • Ability to thread beads or pasta on a string. • Imitating a drawing of a line. • Ability to use a turning motion for doorknobs, lids, wind-up toys.

• Ability to turn switches on and off. • Ability to turn pages in a book.

Problem solving • Pretend play. • Knowing where items are kept and putting them away in the right places. • Recognition of own image in mirror. • Ability to work out a way of getting something out of reach.

• Ability to copy lining up four objects in a row. • Picture recognition. Personal-social • Copying gestures. • Ability to use cutlery. • Appropriate play with common toys.

• Ability to put on a coat without help. • Calling themselves 'I' or 'me'. Communication • Following instructions (eg, 'get your book' or 'close the door'. • Vocabulary: Ability to name items/animals in a picture or parts of the body. Words such as 'mine', 'you', 'me'. • Understanding instructions given without gestures/pointing.

• Ability to make sentences of 3-4 words. • Intelligible to familiar adults. Hearing and vision • Parental concerns. • Family history of problems. Priority topics [] The HCP identifies the following topics as priorities at the two-year check. Healthy lifestyle This focuses on the prevention of obesity and on nutrition and active play. Nearly a third of children aged 2-15 years are obese currently, leading to huge potential health and economic costs later in life [].

The two-year review is an excellent opportunity to discuss and establish lifelong healthy eating habits and encourage physical activity. This should be within the context of the whole family's eating and activity patterns. Parents and siblings are role models, and meals should ideally be taken within the family group. Specific information and advice about a healthy balanced diet should be shared and should be culturally appropriate and relevant. Vitamin drops containing vitamins A, C and D should be given to all children up to the age of 5 years. Weight and height may be recorded on the growth charts in the child's 'red book'.

Body mass index charts can be used for overweight or obese children. Referral for growth problems or interventions for obesity may be considered where appropriate. Immunisation Immunisation status is checked at the two-year review and followed up if not complete. Advice is given about the forthcoming schedule of further vaccination and its importance. Personal, social and emotional development This gives an opportunity for the parents to discuss temper tantrums and other behavioural problems, sleep issues and toilet training. By this age most toddlers are out of nappies in the daytime and using a potty or toilet. Issues such as parenting, involvement of the father, parental relationships and secure attachments can be discussed.

Speech, language and communication Normall by this age a child can understand more complex instructions, has a range of 200 words or more, uses two- or three-word phrases, and can be understood by those who know them well. Where this is not the case referral to audiology or speech and language therapy may be appropriate. Injury prevention Most injuries at this age occur at home as a result of scalds, burns, falls or accidental poisoning, and this is an opportunity to raise awareness and prevent such incidents. Examples of areas to discuss include: • Locked cupboards for medicines, cleaning products. • Stair-gates. • Covers for electric plugs. • Covers for sharp corners.

• Smoke alarms. Tools [] The Department of Health's 2009 guidance on the two-year review advises that if there are concerns, a formal assessment using validated tools should be used.

Which is appropriate in each circumstance may vary between locality and individuals. The recommended tools are not needed in every child but support professional judgement where used.

Validated recommended tools include: • UK World Health Organization (WHO) growth charts (to chart weight and height accurately in order not to miss problems such as obesity). • Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) (for general development).

• Schedule of Growing Skills II (SOGS II) (for general development). • Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) (for general development). • Sure Start Speech and Language Measure or the Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) (for speech and language assessment).

• Social and Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) (autistic spectrum disorders). • The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT). • Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional (ASQ:SE). • Achenbach Child behaviour checklist. • Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (BITSEA). • Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. • HOME inventory (for parenting style observation).

November 2017 - Dr Hayley Willacy recently read up-to-date guidance for first-line and second-line investigations for children with global developmental delay under the age of 5 years []. Global developmental delay (GDD) affects 1%-3% of the population of children under 5 years of age, making it one of the most common conditions presenting in paediatric clinics. Recent evidence shows that genetic testing for all children with unexplained GDD should be first line, if a cause is not already established. Free Download Kamus Inggris Indonesia Untuk Hp Samsung. This review demonstrates that all patients, irrespective of severity of GDD, should have investigations for treatable conditions. The number of treatable conditions discovered this way is higher than previously thought and investigations for these metabolic conditions should be considered as first line. Additional second-line investigations can be led by history, examination and developmental trajectory.

•; e-Learning for Health Care •; Dept of Health •; Dept of Health •; GOV.UK, Updated 12 Nov 2015 •; NI GOV.UK •; NHS Scotland •; ISD Scotland/NHS Scotland •; Welsh Government •; Dept of Health, 2009 •; Developmental assessment of children. 2013 Jan 15346:e8687. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8687. • • •; GOV.UK, 29 July 2014 •; GOV.UK, August 2016 •; Current evidence-based recommendations on investigating children with global developmental delay. Arch Dis Child. 2017 Nov102(11):1071-1076. Doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311271.

• Last Checked 02 December 2016 • Next Review 01 December 2021 • Document ID 29339 (v1) • Author • Peer reviewer Dr Hayley Willacy Disclaimer: This article is for information only and should not be used for the diagnosis or treatment of medical conditions. Patient Platform Limited has used all reasonable care in compiling the information but make no warranty as to its accuracy.

Consult a doctor or other health care professional for diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. For details see our.