Advertisement

Developmental Review

A New Approach to Early Intervention Emphasizing Parental Involvement
  • Harry Ireton
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Developmental Psychobiology book series (TDP)

Abstract

The importance of involving parents in the assessment of their young children’s development has long been recognized as an integral part of developmental screening (Frankenburg & Dodds, 1967) and diagnosis (Gesell & Amatruda, 1954). This paper describes a method for reviewing young children’s developmental progress that stresses parent involvement and the utilization of parental information about the child’s development. The purpose of the Development Review is to review the child’s progress with the parent (usually the mother) in a way that is beneficial for the parents of both normally functioning and developmentally disabled children. In addition, it includes a mechanism for identifying children who are developmentally delayed.

Keywords

Developmental Screening Mental Review Developmental Review Significant Developmental Delay Structure Interview Format 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alpern, G. D., Boll, T. J., & Shearer, M. (1980). Developmental Profile II Aspen, CO: Psychological Development Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Frankenburg, W. K., & Dodds, J. B. The Denver Developmental Screening Test. Journal of Pediatrics, 71, 181-191.Google Scholar
  3. Frankenburg, W. K., van Doorninck, W. J., Liddell, T. N., & Dick, N. P. (1976). The Denver Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire. Prediatrics, 57, 744–753.Google Scholar
  4. Gesell, A. L., & Amatruda, C. S. (1954). Developmental diagnosis New York: Hoeber.Google Scholar
  5. Gottfried, A. W. Guerin, D., Spencer, J. E., & Meyer, C. (1983). Concurrent validity of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 643–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huntington, D. (1977). Developmental review in the EPSDT program (HCFA 77-24537). Washington, DC: U.S. Development of Health, Education, and Welfare, The Medicaid Bureau.Google Scholar
  7. Ireton, H., & Thwing, E. (1974). The Minnesota Child Development Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Behavior Science Systems.Google Scholar
  8. Ireton, H., & Thwing, E. (1979). The Minnesota Preschool Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Behavior Science Systems.Google Scholar
  9. Ireton, H., & Thwing, E. (1980a). The Minnesota Infant Development Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Behavior Science Systems.Google Scholar
  10. Ireton, H., & Thwing, E. (1980b). The Minnesota Preschool Inventory Form 3, 4. Minneapolis, MN: Behavior Science Systems.Google Scholar
  11. Lichenstein, R., & Ireton, H. (1984). Preschool screening: Identifying young children with developmental and educational problems. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  12. McShane, M. (1973). The utility of parent reports in clinical practice and research with children. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from H. Ireton, Mayo Box 381, University of Minnesota Health Sciences, Minneapolis, MN 55455).Google Scholar
  13. Stone, N. W., Ireton, H., & Runquist, R. (1979). Procedures for the assessment and review of development: A field study (HCFA 77-500-0031). Washington, DC: The American Association of Psyhiatric Services for Children. No. 77-500-0032.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Ireton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Family Practice and Community HealthUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations