|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
a National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit,
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, b Nuffield Department of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford and
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford,
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford
Correspondence to: Mrs Fooks.
AIMS
To evaluate a parental questionnaire as a
means of providing outcome measures for a multicentre randomised
controlled trial of treatment for post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation.
METHODS
The parents of 88 survivors were sent a
questionnaire before a paediatric assessment at the age of 30 months.
The parents' responses to individual questions taken mainly from the
Griffiths' mental development scales and their perception of the
child's ability to see and hear were compared with the paediatric
findings. A model, based on the parents' responses to particular
questions, allowed the categorisation of the children as normal,
impaired, moderately or severely disabled; this was compared with
similar categorisation based on the full paediatric assessment.
RESULTS
Agreement on items concerning gross motor
function ranged between 81 and 99%, concerning dressing between 77 and
80%, concerning feeding between 91 and 99%, and concerning language
between 85 and 93%. Similar proportions of children were identified as
disabled by the parents (60%) and by the paediatrician (66%). Of 29 children who had developmental quotients less than 70, parents
identified 28 as disabled, 18 of them as severely disabled. They were
not so good at identifying children with impairments without functional loss.
CONCLUSIONS
Further work is required but there is
sufficient encouragement from the results to pursue this methodology
further for use in comparing groups in randomised trials.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A R O'Connor, T J Stephenson, A Johnson, S D Wright, M J Tobin, S Ratib, and A R Fielder A comparison of findings on parents' and teachers' questionnaires, and detailed ophthalmic and psychological assessments Arch. Dis. Child., September 1, 2004; 89(9): 831 - 835. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
| ARCH DIS CHILD | FETAL NEONATAL ED | ED PRACTICE |