scholarly journals Critical Deficiency Ratings in Milestone Assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 820-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kinnear ◽  
Rachel Bensman ◽  
Justin Held ◽  
Jennifer O’Toole ◽  
Daniel Schauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Ariel S. Frey-Vogel ◽  
Shannon E. Scott-Vernaglia ◽  
Lindsay P. Carter ◽  
Grace C. Huang
Keyword(s):  

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise de Almeida Maia ◽  
Farid Bardid ◽  
Tobias Koch ◽  
Paola Okuda ◽  
George Ploubidis ◽  
...  

Is the assessment of motor milestones valid and scaled equivalently for all infants? It is not only important to understand if the way we use gross and fine motor scores are appropriate for monitoring motor milestones but also to determine if these scores are confounded by specific infant characteristics. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the latent structure underlying motor milestone assessment in infancy and measurement invariance across sex, birth weight, and gestational age. For this study, the birth cohort data from the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) was used, which includes the assessment of eight motor milestone tasks from the Denver Developmental Screening Test in 9-month-old infants (N = 18,531), depicting early motor development of the first children of generation Z. Confirmatory factor analyses showed a better model fit for a two-factor structure (i.e., gross and fine motor development) compared to a one-factor structure (i.e., general motor development), and multiple indicators multiple causes modeling revealed no differential item functioning related to sex, birth weight, and gestational age. The study provides support for the use of gross and fine motor scores when assessing motor milestones in infants—both boys and girls with different birth weights and of varying gestational ages. Further investigation into widely adopted assessment tools is recommended to support the use of valid composite scores in early childhood research and practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Janae K. Heath ◽  
Tisha Wang ◽  
Lekshmi Santhosh ◽  
Josh L. Denson ◽  
Eric Holmboe ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee K. Gardner ◽  
Daniel J. Scott ◽  
Michael A. Choti ◽  
John C. Mansour

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lalena M. Yarris ◽  
David Jones ◽  
Joshua G. Kornegay ◽  
Matthew Hansen

Abstract Background In July 2013, emergency medicine residency programs implemented the Milestone assessment as part of the Next Accreditation System. Objective We hypothesized that applying the Milestone framework to real-time feedback in the emergency department (ED) could affect current feedback processes and culture. We describe the development and implementation of a Milestone-based, learner-centered intervention designed to prompt real-time feedback in the ED. Methods We developed and implemented the Milestones Passport, a feedback intervention incorporating subcompetencies, in our residency program in July 2013. Our primary outcomes were feasibility, including faculty and staff time and costs, number of documented feedback encounters in the first 2 months of implementation, and user-reported time required to complete the intervention. We also assessed learner and faculty acceptability. Results Development and implementation of the Milestones Passport required 10 hours of program coordinator time, 120 hours of software developer time, and 20 hours of faculty time. Twenty-eight residents and 34 faculty members generated 257 Milestones Passport feedback encounters. Most residents and faculty reported that the encounters required fewer than 5 minutes to complete, and 48% (12 of 25) of the residents and 68% (19 of 28) of faculty reported satisfaction with the Milestones Passport intervention. Faculty satisfaction with overall feedback in the ED improved after the intervention (93% versus 54%, P  =  .003), whereas resident satisfaction with feedback did not change significantly. Conclusions The Milestones Passport feedback intervention was feasible and acceptable to users; however, learner satisfaction with the Milestone assessment in the ED was modest.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Leddy ◽  
Madelene Lewis ◽  
Susan Ackerman ◽  
Jeanne Hill ◽  
Paul Thacker ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document