What is GMSD The Griffiths Mental Development Scale is an assessment tool used to evaluate the rate of development in children ages birth to two years

What is GMSD
The Griffiths Mental Development Scale is an assessment tool used to evaluate the rate of development in children ages birth to two years (Ltd, 2018). The GMDS is broken down into five sub categories, locomotor, personal-social skills, hearing and language, eye-hand coordination, and performance (Ltd, 2018).
Summary
Article one discusses whether or not the Griffiths Mental Development Scale (GMDS) is helpful when screening for neurological disabilities such as cerebral palsy. The criteria for the study included the infant being born before 32 weeks gestation with a birth weight less than 1500 g (3.3 lbs.), written informed consent from the parents, and the infant having absences of abnormal recurrence of congenital abnormalities; the sample size was 35 children (Biasini et al., 2015). The GMDS was performed by a trained psychologist that was unaware of the neurological evaluation results (Biasini et al., 2015). The results showed a significant correlation between the medical diagnosis and the GMDS at both six and twelve months. So, in conclusion to the study, the GMDS can be used along side neurological assessments completed by licensed physicians in order to screen for potential motor disabilities.
Article two discusses the comparison of the results between the Denver development screening test and the Griffiths Mental Development Scale on a sample size of 198 preterm children during their first three years. The criteria for this study was infants born less than 37 weeks gestation, birth weight between 501 g (1.1 lbs.) and 2000 g (4.4 lbs.), and born at Hammersmith Hospital or Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital between June 1979 and May 1980 (Elliman et al., 1985). In some children whose GMDS showed delays, their Denver assessment resulted in a normal development.
Tie-In to PICO
According to the first article, the GMDS could be used as a tool for screening for major disabilities in neurological assessments. It should not, however, be used independently, but rather, in correlation with a neurological assessment completed by a licensed physician in order to identify infant at high risk for developing special needs in the future.
According to the second article, the children being assessed by the Denver assessment were assessed against the following criteria: (1) The child performed tasks appropriate for their age and showed up to one delay (inability to perform tasks which 90% of their age group can do) was classified as normal. (2) The child could not perform any tasks appropriate for their age (that is which 25 to 90% of their age group can do) and had one delay was classified as questionable. (c) The child had two or more delays was classified as abnormal (Elliman et al., 1985). If the child had two or more abnormal OR one abnormal and one or more questionable result, the test was ruled abnormal; if the child had one abnormal OR one or more questionable result, the test was ruled questionable; if all results were normal, the test was ruled normal (Elliman et al., 1985). While using corrected age, the Denver assessment only found one child with a consistent questionable or abnormal result; that child’s development quotient was 89 at three years old (Elliman et al., 1985). In contrast, the Denver assessment gave normal results at least once for all eight children with cerebral palsy when using the corrected age; two out of the eight had consistently normal results. However, when using the real age, none of the children had consistently normal results and only two out of the eight had normal result once (Elliman et al., 1985).
The GMDS recommends using real age rather than corrected age, but for the study, both were assessed for comparison reason. The reason real age should be used is because there is a chance for developmental quotient change. For example, two children’s quotients rose from 76 to 80 (Elliman et al., 1985). For the GMDS with children born prematurely, quotients 80 and above were classified as normal; quotients between 70 and 79 were classified as questionable; quotients 69 and below were classified as abnormal (Elliman et al., 1985). The Denver assessment recorded 13 false positives throughout this study (Elliman et al., 1985). This means that 13 children were classified as questionable or abnormal when their developmental quotients were 80 and above.
PICO Conclusion
After analyzing the articles, our PICO question, “does the Denver II assessment lead to decreased diagnosis of delayed development in premature babies in comparison to the Griffiths assessment?” can be supported. The GMDS is more detailed which helps identify children with lower developmental quotients. The Denver test is more accurate if no correction for prematurity is made, according to the research we have completed. The inconsistency of correctly identifying developmental issues makes this tool less appropriate to use for premature infants in comparison to the GMDS.