Checklist for Autism in Toddlers Checklist for Autism in Toddlers Third Edition (CHAT-3) for Chinese Third Edition (CHAT-3) for Chinese
Children – Hong Kong StudyChildren – Hong Kong Study
Checklist for Autism in Toddlers Checklist for Autism in Toddlers Third Edition (CHAT-3) for Chinese Third Edition (CHAT-3) for Chinese
Children – Hong Kong StudyChildren – Hong Kong StudyPrinciple InvestigatorPrinciple Investigator: Prof Virginia Wong: Prof Virginia Wong
Co-InvestigatorsCo-Investigators:: Dr Cheuk-Wing FungDr Cheuk-Wing FungDr Brian Hon-Yin ChungDr Brian Hon-Yin ChungDr Wing-Cheong Lee Dr Wing-Cheong Lee Dr Joy Lok-Sum Leung Dr Joy Lok-Sum Leung Ms Nancy TsangMs Nancy TsangMs Stella HuiMs Stella Hui
Research Background (1)
• Autistic disorder affects 5-30 in 10,000 of population
• most beneficial intervention : early and intensive special education
Research Background (2)
• Checklist for Autism in Toddlers– A screening tool for prospective
identification of autistic cases at 18-months of age (Baron-Cohen 1992)
• Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (Robins et al (2001) )– 18 to 24-months of age
Research Background (3)
• Symbolic Play Test (Second Edition) to estimate the mental age– an adjunctive tool to understand
development of subjects– 4 separate situations – subject is allowed to play with the standard
sets of miniature toys with minimal prompting
Objectives (1)• To test the validity and reliability (internal
consistency and inter-rater reliability) of the new CHAT-3 in Chinese children in Hong Kong
• Any items that can best discriminate the autistic development will be sought
• To determine the most suitable cut-off criteria and risk stratification from the graduated scores of CHAT-3
Objectives (2)• To examine the utility of CHAT, M-CHAT and
CHAT-3• Consistency and accuracy between the
three screening tools • To test the applicability of Symbolic Play
Test in the Chinese population in determining the mental maturity of children
• To explore the possibility of CHAT-3 for population-wide or targeted high risk group screening.
Study method and Procedure:
• Cross-Sectional
• Subject:– Chinese population– Children aged between 18 months and 6 years old
– In the fieldtrips up to 19/06, we have interviewed 109 children.
– Normal nurseries: 31 – EETC (Heep Kong Society): 78 – (Among the 109 children, the demographic data of 17 children is not
available)
Study method and Procedure:
• Method– Written consent obtained before the interview– Demographic data – Self-administered Part A questionnaire
– Tests:1. Checklist for Autism in Toddlers 3rd Edition (CHAT-3)2. Symbolic Play Test3. Reynell4. The Functional Independence Measure (WeeFIM)
– We conducted tests 1-3 in the children of normal nursery (as the parents are present), and conducted all the 4 tests in the children of EETC.
Study method and Procedure
• Schedule:– 29/4- First meeting and interview– 28/5- Briefing session– 28-29/5-1st field trip (Portland Street)– 6/6- Workshop: training and inter-rater c
orrelation
Study Method and Procedure• Schedule
– 10/6- Toys collection, inter-rater correlation
– 11-25/6- Field trip and data entry– 17/6- mid- evaluation and inter-rater
correlation – 21-27/6- Data analysis– 27/6- Presentation
Toy Toy CollectionCollection
Field Trip
Tam To Centre (EETC)
SKH St Thomas DC
CHAT-3 Centre Visit Schedule
Date Centre Type 07/06/2002 Jessie & Thomas Tam Centr
eEETC
11/06/2002 SKH St Thomas DC Normal Nursery
Leung King Centre EETC
12/06/2002 Cheerland DN & DC Normal Nursery
13/06/2002 Jockey Club Centre EETC
Pak Tin Centre EETC
Shun Lee Centre EETC
CHAT-3 Centre Visit Schedule (continue)
Date Centre Type
14/06/2002 Cheerland DN & DC Normal Nursery
Kwok Yip Lin Houn Cnetre EETC
17/02/2002 St James Settlement Kathleen McDonall CCC
Normal Nursery
18/02/2002 Jessie & Thomas Tam Centre
EETC
19/02/2002 St James Settlement Kathleen McDonall CCC
Normal Nursery
24/02/2002 HKSPC Portland Street DC Normal Nursery
25/02/2002 HKSPC Chan Kwan Biu Mem. Foundation DC
Normal Nursery
HKSPC Esther Lee DC Normal Nursery
Data Analysis: 21 June, 2002Data Analysis: 21 June, 2002
Study method and Procedure:• Analysis
– interrater correlation (>0.95) by taking data from same parents at least by 2 interviewers
• 100% was attained for Chat B and Symbolic Play Test
– Grouped according to • chronological and mental age• status of health and diagnosis (autism / PDD, developmental del
ay, cerebral palsy, multiple handicaps and normal)
– Double-blinded and controlled paired up
Study method and Procedure:
• Analysis (continue)– For children who have been diagnosed as AD or
PDD, results of CHAT-3 are compared with the previously charted diagnosis to show the validity
– For those who hasn’t been previously diagnosed as PDD / AD but picked up by CHAT-3 will be assessed using Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (AIDR, Catherine Lord et al (1994)) to confirm the diagnosis
Result: Chronological Age distribution of the
subjects:•All the children are aged between 18 months and 6 years old.•Youngest: 18 months old•Eldest: 59 months old•Aged between 18 and 36 months: 60.9%
Age at test (mos)
60.0
57.5
55.0
52.5
50.0
47.5
45.0
42.5
40.0
37.5
35.0
32.5
30.0
27.5
25.0
22.5
20.0
17.5
Age distribution of the subjects (up to 19/06)12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = 9.77
Mean = 34.9
N = 92.00
Symbolic Play Test - Age
SPT (Age)
Symbolic Play Test - Age (months)12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = 7.27
Mean = 25.0
N = 109.00
Reynell - Age
Reynell Verbal Expression - Age (yr.mo)
verbal exp
4.095
4.040
4.010
3.600
3.105
3.080
3.040
3.020
3.000
2.100
2.080
2.060
2.030
2.010
1.100
1.080
1.030
1.010
Missing
Co
un
t
10
8
6
4
2
0
Reynell Expressive Expression - Age (yr.mo)
expressive exp
6.550
4.055
4.005
3.100
3.060
3.020
2.110
2.080
2.050
2.010
1.100
1.070
1.030
1.000
MissingC
ou
nt
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Result:
•Boys: 66
•Girls: 43
• Gender
Boys
Girls
Boys Girls
Result: DiagnosisDiagnosis No. of subject Percentag
eMental retardation
or delayed development
54 51.4%
Cerebral palsy 1 1.0%
Pervasive developmental
disorders (include autism)
3 2.9%
Multiple handicaps 4 3.8%
Normal 43 41%
Handedness of the subjects
Handedness
bilateral
left
right
Missing
Head Circumference of the subjects
Head circumference (cm)
>51
46-50.99
41-45.99
<=40.99
Missing
Demographic Data of Father
Occupation of father
Unskilled
Semi-skilled
Skilled - Maual and
Intermediate
Professional
Missing
Eduction level of father
Primary school (P.6)
Secondary school (F.Matriculate / Diplom
University degree or
Missing
Demographic Data of Mother
Occupation of mother
Unskilled
Semi-skilled
Skilled - Manual and
Intermediate
Professional
Missing
Eduction level of mother
No official educatio
Primary school (P.6)
Secondary school (F.
Matriculate / Diplom
University degree or
Missing
Domestic helper
Domestic Helper
yes
No
Missing
CHAT-3CHAT-3CHAT-3CHAT-3
CHAT • 1. Results of CHAT A
• 2. Results of CHAT B
• 3. Internal consistency of CHAT
CHAT A • Difference between normal ,autistic and
developmental delay subjects in:
• 1. Total scores
• 2. Scores in the 6 discriminative items
Notes
• Questions 1 and 16 are buffer questions • those who fail either of the 2 buffer
questions are excluded from the analysis ;
• There are 5 normal and 9 developmental delay subjects being excluded
Failing definition • CHAT A : fail 3 or more questions in
the whole chat A
• The 6 discriminative items : fail 2 or more questions among the six
Total scores - normal subjects
SUM23
2 5.3 6.3 6.31 2.6 3.1 9.41 2.6 3.1 12.54 10.5 12.5 25.02 5.3 6.3 31.38 21.1 25.0 56.3
10 26.3 31.3 87.53 7.9 9.4 96.91 2.6 3.1 100.0
32 84.2 100.06 15.8
38 100.0
14.0015.0016.0017.0018.0019.0020.0021.0022.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
SUM23
SUM23
22.00
21.00
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
15.00
14.00Frequency
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Failing rate of normal subjects in CHAT A
PASS23
28 73.7 87.5 87.54 10.5 12.5 100.0
32 84.2 100.06 15.8
38 100.0
.001.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
PASS23
1.00.00MissingPercent
80
60
40
20
0
73.7% of normal subjects fail chat A
Results of normal subjects in the six
discriminative items
SUM6Q
1 2.6 2.9 2.91 2.6 2.9 5.76 15.8 17.1 22.9
27 71.1 77.1 100.035 92.1 100.03 7.9
38 100.0
3.004.005.006.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
SUM6Q
SUM6Q
6.005.004.003.00
Frequency
30
20
10
0
Failing rate of normal in the 6 discriminative
items
PASS6Q
2 5.3 5.7 5.733 86.8 94.3 100.035 92.1 100.03 7.9
38 100.0
.001.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
PASS6Q
1.00.00Missing
Percent
100
80
60
40
20
0
5.3 % of normal fail the 6 items
Total scores - autistic subjects
SUM23
SUM23
18.009.007.00Frequency
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
SUM23
1 33.3 33.3 33.31 33.3 33.3 66.71 33.3 33.3 100.03 100.0 100.0
7.009.0018.00Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Failing rate of autistic subjects in CHAT A
PASS23
3 100.0 100.0 100.0.00ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
All autistic subjects fail chat A
Results of autistic subjects in the 6
discriminative items
SUM6Q
SUM6Q
6.001.00.00Frequency
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
SUM6Q
1 33.3 33.3 33.31 33.3 33.3 66.71 33.3 33.3 100.03 100.0 100.0
.001.006.00Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
failing rate of autistic subjects in the 6
discriminative items
PASS6Q
1.00.00Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PASS6Q
2 66.7 66.7 66.71 33.3 33.3 100.03 100.0 100.0
.001.00Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
66.7 % of autistic subjects fail the 6 items
Total scores - developmental delay
subjects
SUM23
SUM23
22.00
21.00
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
Frequency
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SUM23
1 2.0 2.2 2.22 4.0 4.4 6.78 16.0 17.8 24.46 12.0 13.3 37.82 4.0 4.4 42.25 10.0 11.1 53.3
14 28.0 31.1 84.44 8.0 8.9 93.32 4.0 4.4 97.81 2.0 2.2 100.0
45 90.0 100.05 10.0
50 100.0
13.0014.0015.0016.0017.0018.0019.0020.0021.0022.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Failing rate of developmental delay subjects in CHAT A
PASS23
1.00.00MissingPercent
100
80
60
40
20
0
PASS23
42 84.0 93.3 93.33 6.0 6.7 100.0
45 90.0 100.05 10.0
50 100.0
.001.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
84 % of developmental delay subjects fail chat A
Results of developmental delay
subjects in the six discriminative items
SUM6Q
SUM6Q
6.005.004.003.002.00Frequency
30
20
10
0
SUM6Q
1 2.0 2.1 2.12 4.0 4.2 6.39 18.0 18.8 25.0
12 24.0 25.0 50.024 48.0 50.0 100.048 96.0 100.02 4.0
50 100.0
2.003.004.005.006.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Failing rate of developmental delay
subjects in the 6 discriminative items
PASS6Q
1.00.00MissingPercent
80
60
40
20
0
PASS6Q
12 24.0 25.0 25.036 72.0 75.0 100.048 96.0 100.02 4.0
50 100.0
.001.00Total
Valid
SystemMissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
24 % of developmental delay subjects fail the 6 items
Failing rate
• In conclusion, the six items are more sensitive than other questions in discriminating autistic children from normal and developmental delay children
Total 6 questionsNormal 73.7 % 5.3 %Autistic 100% 66.7 %Developmental delay 84 % 24 %
CHAT B• Difference between normal, delay de
velopment and autistic subjects in:• 1. Eye contact• 2. Gaze monitoring • 3. Pretend play• 4. Protodeclarative pointing
CHAT B - Q1- Eye contact
Normal subjects
NEWB1
1.00
• Eye contact:• usually, sometimes = Pass (1); • seldom., never = Fail (0)
• All the subjects passed the test.
Autistic Subjects• All the autistic
subjects failed the test.
NEWB1
.00
Delay Development
• Pass = 1 (91.5%)• Fail = 0 (8.5%)
• Conclusion:• All autistic subjects
failed in eye contact, while most of the other subjects passed the test.
1.00
.00
CHAT B - Q2 - Gaze monitoring
‘ 小明 , 你睇…’ Normal subjects
• Result of Q2 in normal subjects
Fail = 1 (2.3 %)
Pass = 2 (97.7%)
2
1
Autistic subjectsResults
Pass= 2 (66.7%)
Fail = 1 (33.3%)
2
1
Delay Development Results
Pass= 2 ( 96.6% )
Fail = 1 (3.4%)
2
1
• .
Conclusion
• Gaze monitoring • Most of the normal ( 97.7 %) ,
delay development (96.6%) and autistic subjects (66.7%) pass the test.
• This test may not be sensitive enough to distinguish autistic subjects from others.
Q3 - Pretend Play ‘ 倒茶茶’
Normal subjectsResult of Q3 in normal subjects
3 : yes(90.7%) 2 : simulate only(7%) 1 : no(2.3%)
3
2
1
Autistic subjects
B3 (Y=3, N=1)
2 66.7 66.7 66.71 33.3 33.3 100.03 100.0 100.0
13Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Developmental Delay• Yes = 3 (83.1%)• Simulate only = 2
(10.2%)• No = 1 (5.1%)
3
2
1
Missing
Conclusion • Pretend Play• Most normal (90.7%) and delay
development subjects (83.1%) passed the test.
• Most autistic subjects (66.7%) failed the test.
Q4 Protodeclarative pointing
‘ 燈燈呢 ?’ Normal subjects
Result of Q4 in normal subjects
4 : point and look(83.7%) 3 : point only(0%)
2 : look only(11.6%) 1 : no(4.7%)
4
2
1
Autistic subjects
4
2
• Point and look = 4 (33.3%)• Look only = 2 (66.7%)
Developmental Delay• Point and look = 4
(54.2%)• Point only = 3
(1.7%)• Look only = 2
(22.8%)• No = 1 (15.3%)
4
3
2
1
Conclusion
• Protodeclarative Pointing:• Most of the normal (83.7%) and delay
development subjects (54.2%) achieved high scores.
• Most autistic subjects (66.7%) failed in the test.
Q4 First object the child responses
Normal subjects
B4 object (1= light, 2=ball, 3=car, 4=doll)
19 44.2 46.3 46.313 30.2 31.7 78.08 18.6 19.5 97.61 2.3 2.4 100.0
41 95.3 100.02 4.7
43 100.0
LightBallcardollTotal
Valid
99MissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Autistic subjects
B4 object (1= light, 2=ball, 3=car, 4=doll)
2 66.7 66.7 66.71 33.3 33.3 100.03 100.0 100.0
LightBallTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Developmental Delay
B4 object (1= light, 2=ball, 3=car, 4=doll)
4 6.8 9.1 9.124 40.7 54.5 63.613 22.0 29.5 93.23 5.1 6.8 100.0
44 74.6 100.015 25.459 100.0
NoneLightBallcarTotal
Valid
99MissingTotal
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Internal consistency of CHAT
• To check the consistence between
• 1. Q7 in part A (A7)and Q4 in part B(B4) , where both focus on protodeclarative pointing
• 2. Q5 in part A(A5) and Q3 in part B(B3), where both focus on pretend play
• We are checking the consistency seperately for :
• 1. Normal subjects• 2. Autistic subjects• 3. Developmental delay subjects
Normal subjects : A7 and B4
B4 (Y=4, N=1) * NEWA7 Crosstabulation
Count
1 14 4
3 28 313 33 36
124
B4 (Y=4,N=1)
Total
.00 1.00NEWA7
Total
Normal subjects : A5 and B3
NEWA5 * B3 (Y=3, N=1) Crosstabulation
Count
2 21 3 30 341 3 32 36
.001.00
NEWA5
Total
1 2 3B3 (Y=3, N=1)
Total
Autistic subjects : A7 and B4
NEWA7 * B4 (Y=4, N=1) Crosstabulation
Count
2 21 1
2 1 3
.001.00
NEWA7
Total
2 4B4 (Y=4, N=1)
Total
Autistic subjects : A5 and B3
NEWA5 * B3 (Y=3, N=1) Crosstabulation
Count
1 11 1 22 1 3
.001.00
NEWA5
Total
1 3B3 (Y=3, N=1)
Total
Developmental delay subjects : A7 and B4
NEWA7 * B4 (Y=4, N=1) Crosstabulation
Count
3 5 10 184 10 17 317 15 27 49
.001.00
NEWA7
Total
1 2 4B4 (Y=4, N=1)
Total
Developmental delay subjects : A5 and B3
NEWA5 * B3 (Y=3, N=1) Crosstabulation
Count
2 4 62 3 38 432 5 42 49
.001.00
NEWA5
Total
1 2 3B3 (Y=3, N=1)
Total
Symbolic Play TestsSymbolic Play TestsSymbolic Play TestsSymbolic Play Tests
Local table of ‘Age equivalent of
score’Report
CAGE
23.000 2 7.07128.000 1 .33.000 1 .40.500 1 .33.000 1 .34.500 2 2.12129.500 3 6.61433.875 4 5.29737.000 1 .36.000 1 .46.500 1 .32.944 18 6.682
SPT_T910111214161718212223Total
Mean NStd.
Deviation
SPT_T
24222018161412108
CAGE
50
40
30
20
10
Local table of ‘Age equivalent of
score’
Limitations • There are not enough sample in
each age group• The children in normal nurseries
are shy to play with the toys
Local table of ‘Age equivalent of
score’Suggestion:• Follow up of missing data• Continue data collection of normal
children
A New Symbolic Play A New Symbolic Play TestTest
A New Symbolic Play A New Symbolic Play TestTest
Situation IIICURRENT SPT
• Relates knife or fork to plate
• Relates fork, knife, or plate to table
• Relates spoon, fork, knife, or plate to doll
NEW SPT• Relates chopsticks
to bowl• Relates chopsticks
or bowl to table• Relates chopsticks
or bowl to doll
SPT Situation IIIDrawbacks of the new set:• The size of chopsticks and bowl
are not proportional to other toys.• The chopsticks and bowl are
bigger and attract children to play with them.
SPT Situation IIISuggestion:• Modify the size of toys
Situation IVCURRENT SPT
• Moves tractor or trailer along
• Relates log(s) to tractor, trailer or man
• Lines up tractor and trailer
• Attaches tractor to trailer
NEW SPT
• Moves train along
• Put train cars on rail
• Lines up train cars
• Attaches train cars
SPT Situation IVDrawbacks of new set:• It cannot replace the current one
because there are no man and logs.• Some new items cannot be
compared with that of current items: Put engine on either end Put train cars on rail
SPT Situation IVSuggestion:• Modify the design of toys
Current: Relates knife or fork to plateNew: Relates chopsticks to bowl
New0 1 Total
EETC Current
0 12 21 331 4 24 28
Total 16 45 61
Nursery Current
0 7 11 181 3 10 13
Total 10 21 31
Overall*
Current
0 19 32 511 7 34 41
Total 26 66 92
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Current: Relates fork, knife, or plate to table New: Relates chopsticks or bowl to table
New0 1 Total
EETC* Current
0 17 14 311 7 22 29
Total 24 36 60
Nursery*
Current
0 7 8 151 2 14 16
Total 9 22 31
Overall**
Current
0 24 22 461 9 36 45
Total 33 58 91* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Current: Relates spoon, fork, knife, or plate to doll New: Relates chopsticks or bowl to doll
New0 1 Total
EETC** Current
0 42 6 481 4 8 12
Total 46 14 60
Nursery*
Current
0 18 4 221 4 5 9
Total 22 9 31
Overall**
Current
0 60 10 701 8 13 21
Total 68 23 91
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Current: Moves tractor or trailer alongNew: Moves train along
New0 1 Total
EETC Current
0 1 6 71 8 50 58
Total 9 56 65
Nursery Current
0 0 0 01 1 30 31
Total 1 30 31
Overall Current
0 1 6 71 9 80 89
Total 10 86 96
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Current: Relates log(s) to tractor, trailer or manNew: Put train cars on rail
New0 1 Total
EETC Current
0 8 9 171 16 31 47
Total 24 40 64
Nursery Current
0 0 7 71 4 20 24
Total 4 27 31
Overall Current
0 8 16 241 20 51 71
Total 28 67 95
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Current: Lines up tractor and trailer New: Lines up train cars
New0 1 Total
EETC** Current
0 25 19 441 2 20 22
Total 27 39 66
Nursery Current
0 8 13 211 1 9 10
Total 9 22 31
Overall**
Current
0 33 32 651 3 29 32
Total 36 61 97
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Current: Attaches tractor to trailerNew: Attaches tractor to trailer
New0 1 Total
EETC** Current
0 42 13 551 3 8 11
Total 45 21 66
Nursery Current
0 15 12 271 1 3 4
Total 16 15 31
Overall**
Current
0 57 25 821 4 11 15
Total 61 36 97
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Mean ScoreCorrelati
onSig.
Situation III
Current
3.480.909 0.000
New 3.92
Situation IV
Current
3.430.768 0.001
New 3.86
TotalCurrent
14.460.961 0.000
New 15.31
Reynell AnalysisReynell AnalysisReynell AnalysisReynell Analysis
Reynell Analysis• Subjects divided into
– Normal children– Children from EETC– Total
Correlation Test• Spearman’s correlation test used• Variables :
– verbal comprehension(Reynell)– Language expression(Reynell)– SPT(age)– Age at test
NormalCorrelations
1.000 .662** .653** .518**. .000 .000 .004
43 42 42 29.662** 1.000 .703** .597**.000 . .000 .001
42 42 41 28.653** .703** 1.000 .464*.000 .000 . .013
42 41 42 28.518** .597** .464* 1.000.004 .001 .013 .
29 28 28 29
Correlation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)N
SPT (Age)
verbal exp
expressive exp
Age at test (mos)
Spearman's rhoSPT (Age) verbal expexpressive expAge at test (mos)
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).*.
Results: Normal• All are statistically significant with p
value smaller than 0.05• All shows positive correlation• All except the correlation between age
and language exp(0.464) shows r >0.5• Strongest correlation between language
exp and verbal comprehension(0.703)
EETCCorrelations
1.000 .842** .853** .806**. .000 .000 .000
59 59 54 53.842** 1.000 .775** .754**.000 . .000 .000
59 62 55 54.853** .775** 1.000 .902**.000 .000 . .000
54 55 55 54.806** .754** .902** 1.000.000 .000 .000 .
53 54 54 54
Correlation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)N
Age at test (mos)
SPT (Age)
verbal exp
expressive exp
Spearman's rhoAge at test (mos)SPT (Age) verbal expexpressive exp
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).**.
Result:EETC• All results are statistically significant• All shows positive correlation• All have r >0.7• Best correlation between language expr
ession and verbal comprehension(0.902)• Generally good correlation between age
and SPT , age and Reynell (r>0.8)
OverallCorrelations
1.000 .734** .731** .650**. .000 .000 .000
92 92 86 85.734** 1.000 .740** .725**.000 . .000 .000
92 109 101 100.731** .740** 1.000 .852**.000 .000 . .000
86 101 101 99.650** .725** .852** 1.000.000 .000 .000 .
85 100 99 100
Correlation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)NCorrelation CoefficientSig. (2-tailed)N
Age at test (mos)
SPT (Age)
verbal exp
expressive exp
Spearman's rhoAge at test (mos)SPT (Age) verbal expexpressive exp
Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).**.
Result: Overall• A combined picture of the results of
normal children and children from EETC• All results are statistically significant• All correlations are positive• All have r > 0.6• Best correlation between language
expression and verbal comprehension
Comment
• Result from EETC shows better correlations than from normal nurseries
• Children perform well in part I of the Reynell likely to do well also in Reynell part II
• Children perform well in SPT also likely to perform well in Reynell
• Older kids generally perform better
WeeFIMWeeFIMWeeFIMWeeFIM
WeeFIM• Aims• Subject: all EETC• 3 catagories
– Self Care Domain Rating– Mobility Domain Rating– Cognition Domain Rating
• Total WeeFIM Rating• Method: face-to-face interview
Results• Descriptive data• Method:
– Catagorize– Chi-square test
• Significant (p <0.05)– SPT age– Reynell– Intra-correlation With WeeFIM raw score
Descriptive Data• 8 EETC; 78 Children• 70 valid WeeFIM• Gender: boys (65.7%) & girls (34.3%)• Chronological Age: 70% between 31 to 40 m
• Some are developmental delay (74%)• WF Total: 60% less than 26 months
(According to Western Norm Data)
WFTOTAL
95.090.0
85.080.0
75.070.0
65.060.0
55.050.0
45.040.0
35.030.0
25.0
WFTOTALFrequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = 18.16
Mean = 63.8
N = 70.00
Dermographic data with WeeFIM
All are not significant• Gender• Chronological age• Head circumference• Parents’ occupation, education level• Diagnosis• Domestic helper
Chat A with WeeFIM• Not significant
– WF1, WF2, WF3 against Chat A• Reason
– WeeFIM –mainly related to the performance status
SPT-age with WeeFIM• Significant
– WF1(p=0.001)– WF2 (p=0.05)– WF total
(p=0.001)
• Not significant– WF3 (p=0.089)
• Proposed Reasons:– Expected to be related
to mental age– Subjects with isolated
speech delay– Parents may not
notice in details• At nurseries• At home
– “I haven’t tried it BUT...”
Reynell Verbal with WeeFIM
• All are significant– WF1 (p=0.000)– WF2 (p=0.000)– WF3 (p=0.003)– WF Total
(p=0.000)
Reynell Expression with WeeFIM
• Significant– WF1 (p=0.000)– WF3 (p=0.016)– WF Total
(p=0.000)
• Not significant– WF2 (p=0.082)
• WF2 and Reynell Expression are independently related to age
Intra-correlationWF1 WF2 WF3 WF T
WF1 0.000 0.047 0.000
WF2 0.000 0.001 0.000
WF3 0.047 0.001 0.005
WF T 0.000 0.000 0.005
Problem encountered• Rating is not reliable• Parents may not notice minor items o
r not notice the items questioned in WeeFIM
Video demonstration• Case 1 – prematurity• Case 2 – Prematurity• Case 3 – Preparation
Top Related