Clinical Pediatrics

http://cpj.sagepub.com/

Assessin Children's Development Using Parents' Reports: The Child Development Inventory
Harold Ireton and Frances P. Glascoe
CLIN PEDIATR 1995 34: 248
DOI: 10.1177/000992289503400504

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/34/5/248

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Clinical Pediatrics can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://cpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://cpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/34/5/248.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 1995

What is This?

Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014

 Assessin Children’s Development Using
Parents’ Reports
The Child Development Inventory
Harold Ireton, 1
Ph.D.
Frances P. Glascoe, Ph.D.
2

Summary: The Child Development Inventory (CDI), completed by parents at home, assesses
the development of social, self-help, motor, language, letter and number skills, and presence of
symptoms and behavior problems of children between the ages of 15 months and 5 years. The
results provide the pediatrician with a profile of the child’s development, problems, and
strengths, and are an aid to comprehensive assessment. CDI norms and validity were
determined for a community sample of 568 children. The CDI developmental scales correlate
closely with age (r= 0.84). CDI results identified all the normative group children who were
enrolled in early childhood/special education (N 26) and correlated with academic =

achievement for children in kindergarten (N 132). CDI scales correlated with reading
=

achievement in kindergarten as follows: general development 0.69, letters 0.56, language

comprehension 0.42, expressive language 0.36, and self-help 0.35. Thus, the CDI provides a
useful measure of children’s development and, because of its reliance on parental reports,
offers an effective approach to developmental assessment in the busy pediatric practice.

Introduction amination, a more detailed report nesses across developmental do-

from the parent about the child’s mains. General and subspecialty
s
part of their assessment present language development pediatricians who care for such
~ of young children whose
development
able, pediatricians need
is question-
more sys-
and
eas as
development in such other ar-
motor, social, and self-help
skills might help to provide a more
children often need to assess the
subtleties of their development,
learning, and social adjustment.
tematic ways of obtaining in-depth accurate answer to the parents’ Developmental assessment helps
information from parents. For ex- concern. pediatricians make focused refer-
ample, parents of 2-year-olds are Also, children with chronic ill- rals for services, assess changes in
sometimes concerned that their nesses or disabilities often have development during the course
child is not talking well enough for complex developmental and be- of medical treatment, conduct
his or her age. In addition to the havioral problems, with various thoughtful follow-up of specific
pediatrician’s observations and ex- patterns of strengths and weak- conditions, and/or gather quality
outcome data for research pur-

Department of Pediatrics, Department of Family Practice and Community Health, University of

1 poses. These diverse applications
of developmental data preclude
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 2
Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, use of screening tests, which are
Nashville, Tennessee
too brief and global to provide in-
Address correspondence to: Harold Ireton, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Department of Family formation about intra-individual
Practice and Community Health, 10 Church Street, S.E., Room 306, Minneapolis, MN 55455 differences. Only assessment-level

248 Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014

Figure 1. Child Development Inventory Profile

Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014 249

 measures can provide rich and cian focus the interview. Parental motor, expressive language, lan-
comprehensive information about report measures also promote rap- guage comprehension, letter, and
a child’s development. Neeverthe- port with parents and thus may number skills of children ages 15
less, assessment instruments are strengthen parent-physician work- months to 6 years (270 items). It
often difficult to administer, and ing relationships in assessment and includes 30 items describing chil-
time limitations constrain use of treatment. dren’s symptoms and behavior
detailed developmental tests. Fur- This article describes the Child problems. Thus, it provides mea-
ther, many children with chronic Development Inventory (CDI),~ a suresof children’s health, develop-
illnesses or disabilities are too ill or parent report level
assessment ment, and adjustment.
too uncooperative to participate measure of young children’s devel-

fully in direct testing. opment. The article also describes

One way to address the difficul- the CDI-norm research, some va- Methods
ties of developmental testing in pe- lidity data, and its use in pediatric
diatric practices is to employ general and subspecialty care. Subjects
measures that rely on parental re- For the past 20 years, one of the Data for the CDI norms were
ports. Such measures can be ob- most widely used parent report collected in South Saint Paul, Min-
tained regardless of children’s measures of children’s development nesota, a working-class community
health or behavior because parents has been the Minnesota Child De- without extremes of wealth or pov-
complete them at home prior to an velopment Inventory (MCDI) .22 erty. Located in the Minneapolis-
appointment. A parent-completed The CDI is a 1992 revision of the Saint Paul metropolitan area, it lies
questionnaire history-tak-
can save original MCDI. The CDI measures between Saint Paul and surround-
ing time by helping the pediatri- the social, self-help, gross and fine ing suburbs. Children in the public
schools’ elementary grades have a
mean IQ of 100, measured by the

Otis-Lennon School Ability Test.l

The norm group included 5681- to
6-year-olds (281 boys, 287 girls), in-
cluding about 100 children at each
year of age, except 5-year-olds, who
numbered 157. The community
and the sample were 95% white.
Parents’ levels of education were
comparable to U.S. Census propor-
tions ( 1990) .4 Mothers’ education:
mean = 14.1 years, SD 1.6, 36%
=

college graduates; fathers’ educa-

tion : mean 13.5 years, SD 2.0,
= =

20% college graduates. Ninety per-

cent of sample parents were high-
school graduates.
Measures
The CDI provides a profile of
the child’s present development
and possible related problems. It
consists of a booklet and answer
sheet for the parent to complete
and a Child Development Inven-
tory Profile sheet for recording re-
sults. The CDI booklet contains
270 statements that describe devel-
opmental skills of children in the
first 61/2 years of life. The criteria for

250 Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014

including items were that they (1)
represented young children’s de-
velopmental skills, (2) were observ-
able by parents in everyday
situations, (3) were descriptive and

clear, and (4) were age-discrimi-

nating. Items that showed a strong
relationship between age and the
percentage of children demon-
strating the behavior were in-
cluded in the CDI scales.
CDI items are grouped to form
the following scales: Social, Self-
Help, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Ex-
pressive Language, Language
Comprehension, Letters, Num-
bers, and General Development.
The General Development Scale is
an index of overall development
that includes the most age-dis-
criminating items from the other
scales. Thirty items describe vari-
ous sensory, physical, motor, and

language symptoms (15 items) and

behavior problems (15 items) of
young children. The problem-
items are designed to provide a
comprehensive survey or screen,
not an in-depth assessment. These
items were derived from previous
research with the Minnesota Pre-
kindergarten Inventory, and the
Preschool Development Inven-
tory,’ both of which are preschool
screening measures.
In the CDI instructions, the items are recorded at the foot of booklet and answer sheet, and a
parent is asked to indicate those the CDI profile (Figure 1). consent form. Answer sheets were
statements that describe the child’s returned by mail.
&dquo;
behavior by marking &dquo;Yes&dquo; or &dquo;No&dquo; Procedures Child Development Inventory
on an answer sheet. Scoring the School census information was results were received for 608 chil-
scales is done by simply counting used to identify age-eligible chil- dren. Some answer sheets were ex-
the number of &dquo;Yes&dquo; responses for dren. Census data were most com- cluded from the sample because of
each scale using a single scoring plete for 5-year-olds enrolled in incomplete data (N 30). Twenty-
=

template. The scores for the scales kindergarten (N = 303); and less four children were reported to
are then recorded on the Child complete for 4-year-olds (N 248) , =
have disabilities or special problems
3-year-olds (N = 198), 2-year-olds on the CDI answer sheet. These
Development Inventory Profile
sheet. The profile pictures the (N 216), and 1 year-olds (N =227).
=
problems ranged from major de-
child’s development in compari- Initially, parents were contacted by velopmental disabilities (Down’s
son to age norms for children from telephone, or, if such contact was syndrome, autism) or physical
I to 6 years. Results for each scale unsuccessful, by mail. Among par- handicaps (cerebral palsy) to lesser
are interpreted as within normal ents reached by telephone, only a developmental problems (speech,
limits, borderline, or delayed. Re- few refused to participate. Parents stuttering) or chronic illnesses
ported symptom and problems were sent a cover letter, a CDI (asthma, juvenile rheumatoid ar-

Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014 251

 thritis.) Ten children with major correlated (r= 0.90+) . The Social r= 0.81, Self Help r= 0.84, Gross
developmental disabilities were ex- Scale correlates highly with both Motor r= 0.81, Fine Motor r=
cluded from the norm sample. language scales ( r range 0.63- =
0.84, Expressive Language r= .83,
To provide some external va- 0.85). Gross Motor and Fine Motor Language Comprehension r=

lidity data beyond the CDI age Scales are less correlated (r range 0.84, General Development r=
norms, two subgroups of children = 0.39-0.64). The General Devel- 0.89. The two scales that were ap-
in the norm group were studied: opment Scale correlates highest plied only to older children, Let-
(1) children enrolled in kinder- with the two language scales, gen- ters and Numbers, had somewhat

garten (N 132) and (2) preschool-

=
erally in the 0.80s and 0.90s (Pval- lower correlations due to the re-
age children in early childhood ues all <0.01). stricted age range, but were never-
special education (N = 26). CDI re- theless high and significant:
sults for a group of children with Validity Letters r= 0.70; Numbers r= 0.83
reported health problems were The validity of the CDI was de- (P values all <0.01).
also examined (N 24). For kin-
=
termined, first, by viewing the pro- To be valid for identifying chil-
dergarten children, reading and gression in mean scores on the CDI dren with developmental prob-
math achievement test results ob- scales with increasing age among lems, a developmental scale must
tained toward the end of kinder- the normgroup children; second, identify those children who fall
garten were available (First Grade by comparing children’s CDI re- below the range of normal. Cutoff
Pretest based on Macmillan Objec- sults to psychological test results; scores identify children with signi-
tives Readiness Level 7, a group-ad- and third, by examining CDI re- ficant delays -
those whose scores
ministered achievement test) .7 sults for children with already iden- are lower than the average scores

tified developmental and health of children who are 30% younger

problems. (e.g., a 36-month-old with scores
Results below the mean scores for 25-
Relationship to Age month-olds). The 30% cutoff is
Age Norms .
The validity of a developmental equivalent to performance two or

Age norms for the CDI scales scale depends, first, on its power to more standard deviations below
were established by determining discriminate among children of dif- the mean in that it singles out the
the mean scores for each scale for ferent ages. Such discrimination bottom 2 % of the population. Also,
ages 12 months to 6 years, 3 should demonstrate increases in children who perform in the bor-
months. For all the CDI scales, mean scores as age increases and derline range, 25% to 30% below
mean scores increase for successive limited variability within a normal age (bottom 3% to 8%), may have
ages. For example, General Devel- range of expectations for each age significant developmental and
opment Scale mean scores pro- group. Practically, if these condi- learning difficulties and need to be
gress from mean five items at 12
=
tions can be met with CDI scale re- identified for early intervention.
months, to 50 items at 3 years, to 69 sults for normal children, then Table 1 shows the frequency of chil-
items at 6 years. comparable children who fall below dren in the normative sample who
the normal range can be identified scored in the normal, borderline,
Reliability with reasonable confidence as de- and delayed ranges on each CDI
Reliability of the CDI develop- veloping below age expectations. scale and on any of the scales. The
mental scales was determined by Because the CDI is designed to General Development Scale shows
using Cronbach’s alpha, a measure measure the developmental pro- the lowest frequency of delayed
of internal consistency. These cor- gress of young children from in- and borderline range scores be-
relations generally exceeded 0.70 fancy to school age, it includes cause it includes the most age-dis-
and typically were in the 0.80s and items that differentiate the behav- criminating items from the other
0.90s for the Expressive Language, ior and development of younger scales. On the CDI Profile overall
Language Comprehension, and children from the behavior and de- results, 9% of children had one or
General Development Scales, the velopment of older children. To more scores that fell in the delayed

longest scales in the CDI. The in- assess the CDI’s relationship to range of development.
tercorrelations among the scales age, correlation coefficients were Table 2 shows the frequencies
(Pearson product-moment corre- produced for each scale in relation of problems reported for norm
lation) showed that the two lan- to subjects’ age. Correlations were group children. The frequencies
guage scales are most highly both high and significant: Social of &dquo;Behavior Problems&dquo; items are

252 Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014

for 3- 6-year-olds only because
to <0.01). Math test results did not problems, including &dquo;demand-
behavior problems are infre- yield sufficient variance to provide ing,&dquo; &dquo;disobedient,&dquo; and &dquo;can’t sit
&dquo;

quently reported for 1- to 3-year- a

validity criterion. still; may be hyperactive.&dquo;
olds. The most common symptoms The two examples shown in Fig-
reported by parents include eating Early Childhood/Special ure 1 illustrate the ability of the

(too little or too much) in about Education Validity Study CDI to provide meaningful devel-
10%, aches and pains in about The standardization sample in- opmental data on children with
11 %, and expressive language cluded 26 children, 2 6 years of to health problems. Both children
problems in about 9%. Problems with age, enrolled in the South Saint are 31/2 years old. One has chronic
language comprehension are less Paul Early Intervention Program. otitis media, the other has spina
common (2% to 3%). The item &dquo;de- Of the 26, 18 were boys and eight bifida. Each child has a develop-
manding-strong willed&dquo; is so com- were girls. Children enrolled meet mental profile showing strengths
mon for both sexes (about 50%) that state criteria, which include the and disabilities/delays, with symp-
it should be considered an &dquo;issue&dquo; for presence of a medically diagnosed toms also reported. The child with

parents rather than an indicator of syndrome known to hinder normal spina bifida shows the expected
a behavior problem. development, or delay in two or gross motor disability and associ-
Certain problems were more more areas of development (1.5 ated limitation of self-help skills in
frequent among boys than girls. standard deviations below the the presence of well-developed so-
Among the &dquo;Symptoms&dquo; items, mean on standardized diagnostic cial, fine motor, and language
motor and language symptoms tests). Nineteen of these 26 chil- skills. Language skills are particu-
and toilet-training difficulties are dren (73%) had CDI profiles that larly well-developed. The child
more common among boys. were delayed in one or more areas. with chronic otitis media displays a
Among the &dquo;Behavior Problems&dquo; The remaining seven children, who very different pattern of abilities
items, numerous problems are more had CDI profiles in the normal and delayed areas of development.
common among 3- 6-year-old
to range, had one or more problems This child’s self-help, gross motor,
boys than girls, including atten- items reported, including five chil- and fine motor skills are adequately
tion-activity level problems, disobe- dren with speech-language prob- developed, while language, letters,
dient-aggressive behaviors, and lems. Thus, all 26 early and numbers scores fall in the de-
anxious-unhappy-isolated behav- childhood/special education chil- layed range. The social develop-
iors. Health problems are reported dren were identified by having ment score is borderline, possibly
for about 5% of both sexes. either a delayed CDI profile (N =
secondary to the language delay.
19) or by problems reported on the The two reported speech and lan-
Kindergarten Validity Study CDI (N = 7) . guage symptoms are consistent with
To provide some external valid- the low language scores. The one
ity data, the relationship between Children With Health Problems symptom reported, &dquo;aches and
parents’ CDI reports and children’s The standardization sample in- pains,&dquo; refers to earaches.
subsequent school performance cluded 24 children whose parents
was studied for the 132 kindergar- reported significant health prob-
ten students in the normative sam- lems. Of the 24, 15 had chronic or Discussion
ple. CDI reports obtained in the recurrent ear infections (otitis me-
fall of the kindergarten year were dia), historically or presently. Of Parents’ reports of their chil-
compared to reading and math these 15 children, five were re- dren’s functioning are viewed with
testing done near the end of kinder- ported on the CDI to have speech some skepticism by clinicians,8~9 yet
garten (Chapter I. First Grade Pre- and language problems, one had a research demonstrates that par-
test based on Macmillan Objectives hearing problem, and one had an ents can provide accurate reports
Readiness Level 7) .77 Reading attention problem. Four children of their child’s present function-
achievement correlated (Pearson r.) with asthma had CDI profiles that ing, especially when this informa-
significantly with the General De- were generally within normal lim- tion is obtained systematically,
velopment Scale (0.69), followed its. One of these children, who was using a standardized inventory
by Numbers (0.65), Letters (0.56), described as having severe asthma such as the MCDI. 1115 Research
Language Comprehension (0.42), and a history of 13 hospitalizations with the MCDI with normal and
Expressive Language (0.36), and in 31/2 years, had a delayed Social clinical samples of children has
Self-Help (0.35) (P values all Scale score and three behavior found strong correlations with age,

Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014 253

 with concurrent and future psy- gress to determine the relationship plete the CDI independently at
chological test results, and with between CDI results and psycho- home (in 30-50 minutes) contrib-
concurrent and future school per- logical test results. utes to the utility of the measure in
formance. For children with vari- The present results suggest that busy medical settings. Concerned
ous developmental disabilities, the CDI provide a useful ad-
can parents usually welcome the op-
from mild disability to mental re- junct clinical assessment for
to portunity to be involved in their
tardation, MCDI results matched some parents and children. The child’s assessment. Ultimately, one
well with intelligence test and CDI is an assessment level measure of the CDI’s strengths is that it pro-
other test results.16 One longitudi- designed to be used with children motes parent-physician collabora-
nal study of normal children ages whose development is question- tion. General and subspecialty
2 to 6 years found strong correla- able or delayed, not a screening pediatricians need to create working
tions between the MCDI scales and measure. The 30 problems items, relationships with parents of chil-
intelligence tests, including the while limited in number, do pro- dren with developmental disabili-
Wechsler and McCarthy Scales, vide a brief, comprehensive survey ties, those with chronic illnesses,
school achievement tests (WRAT of parents’ concerns about their children with behavioral problems,
R), and the Vineland Adaptive Be- child’s health, development, and and, perhaps most critically, with
havior Scales. 17 The MCDI has also adjustment. Previous research with parents of children who have multi-
been used with parents of lower these items in the Preschool Devel- ple problems. Using the CDI actively
socioeconomic status in one study opment Inventory has demon- involves the child’s parents in the
comparing Head Start children strated the relationship of some of in-depth assessment of their child’s
with other preschool-age chil- these items to subsequent poor problems, strengths, and needs. Par-
dren.&dquo; That study showed that performance in kindergarten, for ents appreciate the additional effort
Head Start children were on par in example, &dquo;Slow to catch on; does to understand their child’s develop-

development of self-help skills but not seem to understand well.&dquo; The ment and needs. They also realize
had lower scores on the Expressive problems items are intended to be that their observations are valued
Language and Language Compre- used in conjunction with the CDI and their concerns acknowledged.
hension Scales of the MCDI. developmental scale results so that The CDI is not appropriate for
The results of this study indi- problem areas can be identified by all parents for two reasons: (1) the
cate that parents’ CDI reports of low-for-age developmental scale format, which requires seventh to
their children’s development cor- scores and/or symptoms/prob- eighth-grade reading comprehen-
related highly with their age and lems reported for these areas. sion, and (2) the normative sam-
typically fell within a defined range These results also suggest that ple, which is 95% white. Although
of normal around their age. CDI the CDI contributes to the assess- the standardization sample has
results for 5-year-olds correlated ment of children with develop- limited racial/cultural and socio-
somewhat with their subsequent mental disabilities and is helpful in economic diversity, it provides a
reading achievement in kindergar- clarifying patterns of disability measure of average performance
ten. Lower correlations may be re- ranging from specific language or for a
working class/middle class
lated to the time interval involved motor disabilities to generalized sample for children ages 12
(predictive validity) and to the developmental retardation. For a months to 6 years. The CDI norm
limitations of the reading test, small number of children with sample is not broadly repre-
which was a group-administered various health problems, the CDI sentative culturally or education-
achievement test. The early child- revealed the presence of develop- ally, nor could it be, because of the
hood/special education sample mental or behavioral problems as inventory format. Additional re-
was a convenience sample includ- well. For children who present with search on the validity of the CDI
ing only 26 children. Although all behavioral problems, the CDI may with diverse populations needs to
26 had signs of developmental reveal that they also have signifi- be done. However, because the
problems on their CDI results, cri- cant developmental delays. Thus, CDI is composed of items that de-
terion data are not available to do the CDI appears to help pediatri- scribe common developmental ac-
a sensiti~~ity-specificity analysis of cians pinpoint difficulties and de- tivities of young children, it
children N~,ith/,Aithout problems termine the need for specific nevertheless appears to identify
on the CDI and iijth /ivithout prob- referrals for further evaluations or children with and without develop-
lems according to some criterion intervention. mental problems. The barriers
test measure. Studies are in pro- The ability of parents to com- posed by limited reading compre-

254 Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014

hension must be clearly recog- REFERENCE velopment Inventory as an aid in the

assessment of developmental disability.

nized, including those for whom
1. Ireton H. The Child Development Inven- J Clin Psychol. 1977;33:162-163.
English is not their lan-
original tory Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Behav- 13. Colligan RC. Prediction of kindergar-
guage. However, an interview form ior Science 1992.
Systems; ten reading success from preschool re-
of the CDI is described in the man- 2. Ireton H. The Minnesota Child Develop- port of parents. Psychol Sch. 1976;13:
ual and a Spanish translation is also ment Inventory Manual. Minneapolis, 304-308.
available. MN: Behavior Science Systems; 1972. 14. Eisert D, Spector S, Shankaran S, et al.
A strength of the CDI is that it 3. Otis AS, Lennon RT. Otis Lennon School Mothers’ reports of their low birth weight
appears quite useful for pediatric Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: Psycho- infants’ subsequent development on the
research on children with a variety logical Corp.; 1989. Minnesota Child Development Inven-
4. Census of the United States Government. J Pediatr Psychol. 1980;5:353-364.
tory.
of illnesses and disabilities. In-
United States Government Clearing- 15. Gottfried AW, Guerin D, Spender JE,
creasingly, pediatric research with house. Washington, DC; 1990. Meyer C. Concurrent validity of the
sick children is broadening its per- 5. Ireton HR, Lun KS, Kampen M. Minne- Minnesota Child Development Inven-
spective to include developmental sota Preschool Inventory identification tory in a nonclinical sample.
J Consult
status and family status measures of children at risk for kindergarten fail- Clin Psychol. 1983 ;51 :643-644.
along with biomedical parameters. Psychol Sch. 1989;18:394-401.
ure. 16. Ireton HR, Thwing EF, Currier S. Minne-
6. Ireton HR. Preschool Development Inven- sota Child Development Inventory: iden-
Longitudinal studies of young chil-
dren with serious illnesses would tory Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Behav- tification of children with developmental

be a particularly relevant use of

ior Science Systems; 1988. J Pediatr Psychol.
disorders.
1977;2:18-22.
7. Macmillan Group Reading Test. The 17. Guerin D, Gottfried AW. Minnesota
the CDI. For example, children Macmillan Test Unit: Macmillan Educa- Child Development Inventories: predic-
receiving cranial irradiation may tion Ltd. England; 1988. tors of intelligence, achievement, and
demonstrate acquired learning 8. Diamond KD, Squires J. The role of J Pediatr Psychol. 1987; 12:595-
adaptability.
disabilities;&dquo;
children with AIDS parental report in the screening and 609.
assessment of young children. 18. Ullman DG, Kausch DF. Early identifica-
may manifest motor delays without J Early
deficits in other domains;2° children Interven. 1993;17:107-115. tion of developmental strengths and
9. Lichtenstein R, Ireton HR. Preschool weaknesses in preschool children. Except
with brain tumors often have behav-
Screening: Identifying Young Children Child. 1979;46:8-13.
ior and social problems in conjunc-
With Developmental and Educational 19. Pecham CB, Meadows AT, Bartel N,
tion with their illness along with Problems. Marrero O. Educational late effects on
Orlando, FL: Grune and
various family characteristics.21 Stratton; 1984. long term survivors of childhood acute
In clinical practice and re- 10. Chaffee CA, Cummingham CE. Screen- lymphocytic leukemia. Pediatrics. 1988;
search, pediatricians are seeking to ing effectiveness of the Minnesota 81:127-133.
integrate concerns about
chil- Child Development Inventory expres- 20. Johnson CB. Developmental issues: chil-
sive and receptive language scales; sen- dren infected with the immunodefi-
dren’s health, development, and
sitivity, specificity, and predictive value. ciency virus. Infants Young Child. 1993;
adjustment. They also seek to bet- Psychol Assess. 1990;2:80-85. 81:127-133.
ter appreciate parents’ roles in
11. Colligan RC. Prediction of reading diffi- 21. Mulhern RK, Carpentieri S, Shema S, et
their children’s development and al. Factors associated with social and
culty from parental preschool report: a
well-being. Use of the CDI with par- 3-year followup. LeamDisab Q. 1981 ;4 :31- behavioral problems among children
ents of young children can contrib- 37. recently diagnosed with brain tumor.
J
ute to these efforts. 12. Colligan RC. The Minnesota Child De- Pediatr Psychol. 1993;18:339-350.

Downloaded from cpj.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 2, 2014

255