European Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 174, Issue 3, pp 325–329 | Cite as

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Denver Developmental Screening Test II

  • Beatriz De-Andrés-Beltrán
  • Ángel L. Rodríguez-FernándezEmail author
  • Javier Güeita-Rodríguez
  • Johan Lambeck
Original Article


The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Denver Developmental Screening Test II in a population of Spanish children. Two hundred children ranging from 9 month to 6 years were grouped into two samples (healthy/with psychomotor delay) and screened in order to check whether they suffered from psychomotor delay. Children from three Early Intervention Centres and three schools participated in this study. Criterion validity was calculated by the method of extreme groups, comparing healthy children to those with development delay. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were calculated using Cohen Kappa coefficient, and internal consistency was calculated via the Kuder-Richardson coefficient. The scale demonstrated 89 % sensitivity, 92 % specificity, a positive predicted value of 91 % and a negative predicted value of 89 %, whereas the positive and negative likelihood ratio was 11.12 and 0.12, respectively. Intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.662 to 1, and interobserver reliability ranged from 0.886 to 1. The Kuder-Richardson coefficient values ranged from 87.5 to 97.6 %.

Conclusion: The Spanish version of the Denver Developmental Screening Test II was found to have a good criterion validity, reliability and internal consistency and is a suitable screening test for use in a population of Spanish children.


Developmental screening Denver Developmental Screening Test Developmental disabilities Psychometric properties Spanish version Validation studies 



American Academy of Pediatrics


Denver Developmental Screening Test


Denver Developmental Screening Test II


Early Intervention Centres


Kuder-Richardson index


Negative likelihood ratio


Negative predictive value


Positive likelihood ratio


Positive predictive value


Statistical Package for Social Sciences


Funding source

No external funding was secured for this study.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Appelbaum AS (1978) Validity of the revised DDST II for referred and nonreferred samples. Psychol Rep 43:227–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Council on Children with Disabilities. Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Bright Futures Steering Committee, Medical Home Initiatives for Children with Special Needs Project Advisory Committee (2006) Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical home: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics 118(1):405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Düger T, Bumin G, Uyanik M, Aki E, Kayihan H (1999) The assessment of Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency in children. Pediatr Rehabil 3(3):125–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Earls MF, Shackelford S (2006) Setting the stage for success: implementation of developmental and behavioral screening and surveillance in primary care practice-the North Carolina assuring better child health and development (ABCD) project. Pediatrics 118(1):e183–e188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frankenbubg WK, Camp BW, Van Natta PA, Demersseman JA (1971) Reliability and stability of Denver Developmental Screening Test. Child Dev 42(5):1315–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frankenburg WK, Dodds J, Archer P et al (1990) Denver II training manual. Denver Developmental Materials, Inc., DenverGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glascoe FP (2000) Early detection of developmental and behavioral problems. Pediatr Rev 21(8):272–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glascoe FP, Byrne KE, Ashford LG, Johnson KL, Chang B, Strickland B (1992) Accuracy of the Denver II in developmental screening. Pediatrics 89(6):1221–1225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halle T, Zaslow M, Wessel J, Moodie S, Darling-Churchill K (2011) Understanding and choosing assessments and developmental screeners for young children: profiles of selected measures. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hallioglu O, Topaloglu AK, Zenciroglu A, Duzovali C, Yilgor E, Saribas S (2001) DDST II for early identification of the infants who will develop major deficit as a sequela of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Pediatr Int 43:400–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim HC, Ho LY, Goh LH, Ling SL, Heng R, Po GL (1996) The field testing of DDST Singapore: a Singapore version of Denver II DST. Ann Acad Med Singap 25(2):200–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, MacCallum RC, Nicewander WA (2005) Use of the extreme groups approach: a critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychol Methods 10(2):178–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sand N, Silverstein F, Glascoe FP, Gupta VB, Tonniges TP, O’Connor KG (2005) Pediatricians’ reported practices regarding developmental screening: do guidelines work? Do they help? Pediatric 116(1):174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shahshahani S, Vameghi R, Azari N, Sajedi F, Kazemnejad A (2010) Validity and reliability determination of Denver Developmental Screening Test-II in 0–6 year-olds in Tehran. Iran J Pediatr 20(3):313–322PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria are proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wijedasa D (2012) Developmental screening in context: adaptation and standardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test-II (DDST-II) for Sri Lankan children. Child Care Health Dev 38:889–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoon DY, Scott K, Hill MN, Levitt NS, Lambert EV (2006) Review of the three tests of motor proficiency in children. Percept Mot Skills 102(2):543–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz De-Andrés-Beltrán
    • 1
  • Ángel L. Rodríguez-Fernández
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Javier Güeita-Rodríguez
    • 2
  • Johan Lambeck
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Nursing and Physical Therapy, School of MedicineCEU-San Pablo UniversityMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical MedicineRey Juan Carlos UniversityAlcorcónSpain
  3. 3.Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Departamento de Enfermería y Fisioterapia, Facultad de MedicinaUniversidad CEU-San PabloBoadilla del MonteSpain

Personalised recommendations