Talk:Denver Developmental Screening Tests

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 21 September 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmiclau, Русский суши. Peer reviewers: Anitaqualls.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me this article is full of original research. Giving comments on the validity of a research study is seriously OR. --99.243.68.63 (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article review

UCSF Wikipedia Inquiry Assignment Peer Review - Anita Qualls I think the following sentence in the introduction, "Both tests differ from other common developmental screening tests in that the examiner directly tests the child" could be improved by listing the two tests you are referring to when you say 'both tests' and after you write 'other common developmental screening tests' you could put (e.g. ) with a few common test names. Otherwise article is detailed and well organized.

@Peter Dawson MD MPH: The article needed a lead, so I went ahead and added the basics. It could use the addition of a sentence about who can administer the test, very generally how it is done, and the context it is used in. It should be written in a style that is brief and easily understood by the layman.

The final 'Conclusion' paragraph is a problem. This is a title for a scientific paper rather than an encyclopaedia, and the fact that it is unreferenced suggests that it is your opinion, or synthesis; and the final sentence is WP:CRYSTAL. I would suggest that the first two sentences be moved to either the lead or the DDST section - they provide good context that will help the layman understand the article. The rest can either be deleted, moved into the previous section, or renamed something like "Comparison with other developmental screening tests", although that is largely what "Studies in Practice" is about (if I understand it correctly - this is not subject matter I could claim to know anything about).

Other than that it looks good to me. It does need wikilinks as we discussed on your talk page. I came across Positive and negative predictive values which will help explain one term that readers may not be familiar with.--Derek Andrews (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Derek, I don't think the program has saved the links in red at the bottom. Otherwise I think I've done what you suggested. I think your edits improved the article, so thanks for them. Anything further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dawson MD MPH (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The red links mean that you tried adding them to a category that does not yet exist. You would have to click on the redlink, create that page then add it to a higher level category. For the time being I have added three categories that seem to apply; they contain similar articles such as Developmental-Behavioral Screening and Surveillance, Bayley Scales of Infant Development and Baroda Development Screening Test. Some of those categories are quite full and could use subcategories being added, but I don't have the inclination to get into that right now - I would rather leave it to someone with a better understanding of the field who can more easily find the right groupings of articles and most appropriate category names. This article still does need wikilinks making to other articles; I will try and get back to that later if you need help. Thanks. Good work, and I hope you will continue contributing to Wikipedia. 16:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Derek, the links in red were to articles in Wikipedia. I think "child development stages" fits better than "child development." The other two I suggested fit better than "Pediatrics." I must not have entered my suggestions in the right place. ```` Peter Dawson MD MPH 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Dawson MD MPH (talk • contribs)

UCSF Wikipedia Inquiry Assignment Peer Review - Anne Sommer The article now has a lot more detail than it used to, and I liked all the studies referenced that use the Denver II. I think more concepts can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that explain them though, especially more difficult ones like the biostats (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV etc). Text read smoothly and transitioned well.

UCSF Wikipedia Inquiry assignment Workplan Nicolas Cevallos, Ted Miclau, Samuel Vydro

This document is not meant to be prescriptive. Instead we offer it to you as a guide. Self-directed learning is optimized when reinforced by a scaffold that includes specific deliverables and a supportive community. Consequently, we trust you to design your own workplan—whether you use this form or not! Just be sure it is a SMART plan – Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timebound. Or put another way—“Who will do how much of what by when?”

Milepost Date By the time I go to bed on this date I will have… Mon 8/30 Assignment Day 1 reviewed Wikiproject Medicine’s website decided what team will work on which article begun designing a viable workplan strategy for our team Fri 9/3 completed all 9 required Wiki Ed training modules posted our team workplan to the wikipage we’re going to improve Fri 9/10 made our first edits live on Wikipedia (rather than merely in sandboxes) Mon 9/13 Wiki Inquiry SG #2

Sun 9/12 begun peer-review Sun 9/19 completed peer-review and posted it on the talk page of the one we’re peer-reviewing Mon 9/20 Wiki Inquiry SG #2

after assignment is complete intermittently check up on “our wiki page” to see if there have been additional improvements improve other areas of Wikipedia’s health content

Aspect of work plan Space for notes Article chosen https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Denver_Developmental_Screening_Tests

Why this one? Include WP rating scale? How fit with your interests. Other details as desired Latest cited articles were published in 2014. Interest in preventive medicine, which are helped by screening tests. Article needs more citations. You WP editing team (up to 3) Ted Miclau, Nic Cevallos, Samuel Vydro Initial Analysis of the article Fairly short in length, requires updated citations or citation support for some statements, and requires more clarification for the extent of its use/its competitor screeners. Overall organization, what changes

What will you add? Updated citations What will you remove? Certain sentences end with “citation needed.” We will update these references, but if we cannot find citations on these subjects/opinions, we will remove. What will you augment? Image section (developmental milestones, screening test scale, and directions to providers), citations (updated), expert testimonial, competitor developmental screenings, What will you decrease coverage of? “Studies in practice” section on sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV. No other major decrease in coverage as the article is already short. Roles in the project. List members and planned roles. Possible roles include: Overseer/amalgamator/reconciler Readability editor Researcher Editor/writer-what sections will each do? Linker, for larger groups consider some one who will check the articles linked to make sure that the linked material is sufficient and accurate Images/graphics Other? Ted: Readability editor Researcher and reviewer of all sections Introduction and Developmental Screening Test sections

Nic: Readability editor Researcher and reviewer of all sections Research Basis and Interpretation sections

Sam: Readability editor Researcher and reviewer of all sections Linker Images (image of questionnaire, links to scale (cutoff from normal to abnormal), developmental milestone link , and instructions to healthcare provider Studies in Practice section Team coordination plan: Options might include, regular team meetings, sharing calendars, setting up a place to keep your work in order to edit collaboratively (this might be the sandbox, or it might be Box or DropBox or Slack, or other) Google doc, group text, and Box WIP presenter Sam, Ted, Nic

http://www.jped.com.br/ArtigoDetalhe.aspx?varArtigo=1841&idioma=pt-BR

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00405-013-2567-0

Ted Introduction: Any updated Denver tests since 1992? Introduction doesn’t include timeline or frequency of test administration?

Denver Developmental Screening Test: Updated countries with standardization? Rephrased last sentence. Updated limitations.

Nic: Denver II: Research Basis: Have tests been administered to greater populations than just Colorado, increasing generalizability? Significant differences?

Interpretation: American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Children with Disabilities: updated screening tests? Any competitor screening tests to Denver Screening?

Sam: Studies in Practice: “Denver in disfavor.” Is this true? Should be mentioned in introduction… at least something about it. Citation needed. Remove or find citation. Citation needed. Remove or find citation.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Denver II Sample Questions.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)