In a study of two-stage screening, children were prescreened with Frankenburg’s Revised Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire and 421 with suspect scores were given the Denver II and evaluated by independent examiners. In children under 18 months the prevalence of abnormality was 0.19 on diagnostic tests, and the Denver II had a positive predictive value of 0.36, a negative predictive value of 0.90, a sensitivity of 0.67, and a specificity of 0.72. The authors concluded that a suspect Denver II “should lead to careful monitoring and rescreening unless provider or parental concern suggests the need for immediate referral.” Among children 18–72 months old, the prevalence of abnormality was 0.43 and the positive predictive value of the Denver II was 0.77,  negative predictive value of 0.89, sensitivity 0.86, and specificity of 0.81. The authors concluded that in their program a suspect Denver II should usually result in  referral. (Positive predictive value meant the probability that a child with a suspect Denver II would be diagnosed as abnormal when evaluated; negative predictive value meant the probability that a child with a normal Denver II would be diagnosed as normal when evaluated.)
In a study of two-stage screening, children were prescreened with Frankenburg’s Revised Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire and 421 with suspect scores were given the Denver II and evaluated by independent examiners. In children under 18 months the prevalence of abnormality was 0.19 on diagnostic tests, and the Denver II had a positive predictive value of 0.36, a negative predictive value of 0.90, a sensitivity of 0.67, and a specificity of 0.72. The authors concluded that a suspect Denver II “should lead to careful monitoring and rescreening unless provider or parental concern suggests the need for immediate referral.” Among children 18–72 months old, the prevalence of abnormality was 0.43 , the positive predictive value was 0.77, the negative predictive value was 0.89, the sensitivity was 0.86, and the specificity was 0.81. The authors concluded that in their program a suspect Denver II should usually result in a referral. (Positive predictive value meant the probability that a child with a suspect Denver II would be diagnosed as abnormal when evaluated; negative predictive value meant the probability that a child with a normal Denver II would be diagnosed as normal when evaluated.)
R
and
,
D
of the Denver II
A
the
R
of
was
R
sensitivity
the sensitivity was
R
specificity of
the specificity was
A
a