PEDS Developmental Screening Tool Construct Validity for Northern Sotho and Zulu Versions: A Validation Study.
Saved in:
| Title: | PEDS Developmental Screening Tool Construct Validity for Northern Sotho and Zulu Versions: A Validation Study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Maleka, Boledi Karabo (AUTHOR), Swanepoel, De Wet (AUTHOR), Graham, Marien Alet (AUTHOR), Van der Linde, Jeannie (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Disability, Development & Education. Mar2026, Vol. 73 Issue 2, p382-391. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Multitrait multimethod techniques, Predictive tests, Pearson correlation (Statistics), Statistical significance, Research methodology evaluation, Questionnaires, Primary health care, Research evaluation, Chi-squared test, Descriptive statistics, Developmental disabilities, Longitudinal method, Caregivers, Psychometrics, Research methodology, Medical screening, Psychology of parents, Early diagnosis, Data analysis software, Medical referrals, Sensitivity & specificity (Statistics), Evaluation |
| Geographic Terms: | South Africa |
| Abstract: | Validation of the translated PEDS test is necessary to improve early detection of developmental delays. This study aimed to determine the construct validity of the translated Northern Sotho and Zulu PEDS tests. This validation study determined whether the translated PEDS tests are valid when compared to the reference English PEDS test. Stratified convenience sampling was used to recruit a collective of 546 research participants from a government healthcare facility in South Africa. A higher referral rate (43%) was found for Zulu participants when compared to Northern Sotho participants (17%). There were significant correlations of the Zulu and Northern Sotho PEDS tests when compared to the reference English PEDS test. Pearson correlations for the Zulu PEDS test ranged from 0.815 (very strong association) to 1.000 (perfect association) and for Northern Sotho from 0.496 to 0.854 (both, very strong association). Equivalence percentages for the Zulu PEDS ranged from 90.9% to 100.0% and for the Northern Sotho PEDS from 92.3% to 100.0%. The translated PEDS test has been found to have construct validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Disability, Development & Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Validation of the translated PEDS test is necessary to improve early detection of developmental delays. This study aimed to determine the construct validity of the translated Northern Sotho and Zulu PEDS tests. This validation study determined whether the translated PEDS tests are valid when compared to the reference English PEDS test. Stratified convenience sampling was used to recruit a collective of 546 research participants from a government healthcare facility in South Africa. A higher referral rate (43%) was found for Zulu participants when compared to Northern Sotho participants (17%). There were significant correlations of the Zulu and Northern Sotho PEDS tests when compared to the reference English PEDS test. Pearson correlations for the Zulu PEDS test ranged from 0.815 (very strong association) to 1.000 (perfect association) and for Northern Sotho from 0.496 to 0.854 (both, very strong association). Equivalence percentages for the Zulu PEDS ranged from 90.9% to 100.0% and for the Northern Sotho PEDS from 92.3% to 100.0%. The translated PEDS test has been found to have construct validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1034912X |
| DOI: | 10.1080/1034912X.2024.2403390 |
