TY - JOUR
T1 - Screening for Academic Risk Among Students With Cleft Lip and/or Palate
T2 - Patterns of Risk and Qualities of Effective Tools
AU - Conrad, Amy L.
AU - Crilly Bellucci, Claudia
AU - Heppner, Celia E.
AU - Albert, Meredith
AU - Crerand, Canice E.
AU - Woodard, Suzanne
AU - Sheikh, Farah
AU - Kapp-Simon, Kathleen A.
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, the Cleft Palate Foundation, (grant number UL1TR002537, K23DE024511).
Funding Information:
The authors would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to the families who gave their time to participate in this study. This work was supported by a grant through the Cleft Palate Foundation (CPF); a training grant through the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (grant number K23DE024511); and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (grant number UL1TR002537).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objective : This study evaluated the effectiveness of academic screening measures in relation to parent-reported diagnoses. Design : Multicenter, retrospective cohort study including structured interviews, questionnaires, and chart reviews. Setting : Six North American cleft centers. Participants : Children (n = 391) with cleft lip and/or palate, ages 8 to 10 years of age (192 male) and their guardians were recruited during regular clinic visits. Main Outcome Measures : Parent and child ratings on the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) School Scale, child report on CleftQ School Scale, parent report on the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Third Edition Functional Academics (ABAS-FA) Scale and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) School Competency Scale, parent interview, and medical chart review. Results : Risk for concerns ranged from 12% to 41%, with higher risk reflected on the CBCL-SC compared to other measures. Males with cleft palate were consistently at the highest risk. Only 9% of the sample had a parent-reported diagnosis of a learning or language disability. Ratings from the ABAS-FA and CBCL-SC had the highest utility in identifying those with language and/or learning concerns. Conclusions : As cleft teams work to develop standardized batteries for screening and monitoring of patients, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of measures in identifying those at highest risk. When screening for language and learning disorders, questions related to potential academic struggles, such as increased school effort or increased school distress, are most useful. Referrals for follow-up evaluation are recommended for those identified at high risk.
AB - Objective : This study evaluated the effectiveness of academic screening measures in relation to parent-reported diagnoses. Design : Multicenter, retrospective cohort study including structured interviews, questionnaires, and chart reviews. Setting : Six North American cleft centers. Participants : Children (n = 391) with cleft lip and/or palate, ages 8 to 10 years of age (192 male) and their guardians were recruited during regular clinic visits. Main Outcome Measures : Parent and child ratings on the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) School Scale, child report on CleftQ School Scale, parent report on the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Third Edition Functional Academics (ABAS-FA) Scale and Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) School Competency Scale, parent interview, and medical chart review. Results : Risk for concerns ranged from 12% to 41%, with higher risk reflected on the CBCL-SC compared to other measures. Males with cleft palate were consistently at the highest risk. Only 9% of the sample had a parent-reported diagnosis of a learning or language disability. Ratings from the ABAS-FA and CBCL-SC had the highest utility in identifying those with language and/or learning concerns. Conclusions : As cleft teams work to develop standardized batteries for screening and monitoring of patients, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of measures in identifying those at highest risk. When screening for language and learning disorders, questions related to potential academic struggles, such as increased school effort or increased school distress, are most useful. Referrals for follow-up evaluation are recommended for those identified at high risk.
KW - nonsyndromic clefting
KW - psychological assessment
KW - quality of life
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135045236&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135045236&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/10556656221116008
DO - 10.1177/10556656221116008
M3 - Article
C2 - 35892129
AN - SCOPUS:85135045236
JO - Cleft Palate Journal
JF - Cleft Palate Journal
SN - 1055-6656
ER -