Pediatric Resident and Faculty Knowledge of the Denver II | Child Development | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Gilbride  KE Developmental testing.  Pediatr Rev. 1995;16338- 345Google ScholarCrossref
Frankenburg  WKDodds  JArcher  PShapiro  HBresnik  B The Denver II: a major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test.  Pediatrics. 1992;8991- 97Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Children with Disabilities, Screening infants and young children with developmental disabilities.  Pediatrics. 1994;93863- 865Google Scholar
Frankenburg  WKDodds  JArcher  P  et al.  Denver II Technical Manual.  Denver, Colo Denver Developmental Materials Inc1990;73- 85
Not Available, Stata for Windows, Version 4.0 [computer program].  College Station, Tex Stata Press1995;
Barratt  MSTanz  RR A survey of the structure and function of pediatric continuity clinics.  AJDC. 1992;146937- 940Google Scholar
Yancy  WSCoury  DLDrotar  DGottlieb  MIKohen  DPSarles  RM A curriculum guide of developmental-behavioral pediatrics.  J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1988;9(suppl 6)S1- S8Google ScholarCrossref
Educational Intervention
April 2000

Pediatric Resident and Faculty Knowledge of the Denver II

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Pediatrics, Divisions of Community and General Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (Dr Barratt), and the Division of Community and General Pediatrics and the Center for Population Health and Evidence-Based Medicine (Dr Moyer), University of Texas–Houston Medical School, Houston.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(4):411-413. doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.4.411

Objective  To assess knowledge of the Denver II, the revised developmental screening tool recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, in residents and faculty, and to evaluate a teaching intervention for incoming postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) trainees.

Design  A cross-sectional test of knowledge for all subjects and pretesting and posttesting of the incoming PGY-1 trainees.

Setting  University of Texas–Houston Medical School Department of Pediatrics.

Participants  Faculty (n=9) and residents (n=78), including an intervention group (n=45), of incoming PGY-1 trainees over 2 years.

Interventions  Postgraduate year 1 trainees in both 1994 through 1995 and 1995 through 1996 viewed the Denver II training videotape on entry into a continuity clinic. Trainees were encouraged to perform Denver II evaluations on at least 1 appropriate patient at each pediatric clinic session and had access to Denver II support materials.

Main Outcome Measures  Scores on the Denver II Proficiency Written Test, self-reported measures of comfort, and number of Denver II evaluations performed.

Results  The mean (SD) test scores for incoming, preintervention PGY-1 trainees (n=45) (41.3 [9.6]) did not differ from scores for outgoing PGY-1 trainees (n=13) (38.5 [10.4]) who had not received the intervention. Postintervention PGY-1 test results were significantly improved (59.4 [10.6]) (P<.001). Test scores for upper-level residents who had participated in the developmental pediatrics rotation (n=14) were better (55.3 [9.3]), but all scored below passing. Residents who had not yet participated in the developmental pediatrics rotation (n=19) and members of the general pediatric faculty (n=9) had scores similar to those of PGY-1 trainees (40.9 [13.4] and 39.0 [15.1], respectively).

Conclusions  Residents had a greater knowledge of the Denver II after completing a developmental pediatrics rotation. Our intervention produced significant improvement in PGY-1 trainees' knowledge, raising it to levels similar to those of upper-level residents exposed to developmental pediatrics. Faculty were not expert in using the Denver II.