Evidence of concurrent and predictive criterion validity of the Child Communication Screening Instrument from 0 to 36 months (IRC-36).
Dayanne Priscila Rodrigues de Almeida, Ana Augusta de Andrade Cordeiro, Larissa Nadjara Alves Almeida and 2 others
PMID 38126425WHAT IT FOUND
The IRC-36 parent questionnaire did not predict later communication risk.
When reapplied by the lead researcher, it agreed with Denver II. It may help screen current communication concerns, not forecast them.
Key findings
01When reapplied by the lead researcher, the IRC-36 matched Denver II classification for 83.3% of children.
02The first IRC-36 application did not significantly agree with later Denver II, so the tool did not show predictive validity.
03Using a cutoff of 12 points, the second IRC-36 application flagged 94.4% of children at risk on Denver II, with accuracy 79.6%.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 33 children were compared with Denver II, and 24 of 69 parents from the first stage returned, so the second-stage sample was small. The study used four Family Health Centers selected by convenience, so the children may not represent other settings. It was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the mean interval between applications was 5 months and 3 days, which may affect development and prediction. Different professionals applied the instrument in the two stages, and the first-stage examiners received lecture-based training only, which may have affected results. Children with hearing or visual impairments or genetic or neurological changes were excluded, so the screen is not shown to work in those groups. The study tested screening agreement and accuracy, not whether using IRC-36 improves child outcomes or treatment benefit.
Declared interests
The work was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES), funding code 001. No other conflicts of interest are stated.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 94.4% sensitivity as evidence that IRC-36 predicts future communication delay. Predictive validity was not significant, and the positive agreement came from the second application compared with Denver II.