Checklist for Autism in Toddlers Third
Edition (CHAT-3) for Chinese Children –
Hong Kong Study
Principle Investigator: Prof Virginia Wong
Co-Investigators:
Dr Cheuk-Wing Fung
Dr Brian Hon-Yin Chung
Dr Wing-Cheong Lee
Dr Joy Lok-Sum Leung
Ms Nancy Tsang
Ms Stella Hui
Research Background (1)
• Autistic disorder affects 5-30 in
10,000 of population
• most beneficial intervention : early
and intensive special education
Research Background (2)
• Checklist for Autism in Toddlers
– A screening tool for prospective
identification of autistic cases at 18months of age (Baron-Cohen 1992)
• Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers
(Robins et al (2001) )
– 18 to 24-months of age
Research Background (3)
• Symbolic Play Test (Second Edition) to estimate
the mental age
– an adjunctive tool to understand development
of subjects
– 4 separate situations
– subject is allowed to play with the standard
sets of miniature toys with minimal prompting
Objectives (1)
•
•
•
To test the validity and reliability (internal
consistency and inter-rater reliability) of the
new CHAT-3 in Chinese children in Hong Kong
Any items that can best discriminate the
autistic development will be sought
To determine the most suitable cut-off criteria
and risk stratification from the graduated
scores of CHAT-3
Objectives (2)
•
•
•
•
To examine the utility of CHAT, M-CHAT and
CHAT-3
Consistency and accuracy between the three
screening tools
To test the applicability of Symbolic Play Test
in the Chinese population in determining the
mental maturity of children
To explore the possibility of CHAT-3 for
population-wide or targeted high risk group
screening.
Study method and Procedure:
• Cross-Sectional
• Subject:
– Chinese population
– Children aged between 18 months and 6 years
old
– In the fieldtrips up to 19/06, we have
interviewed 109 children.
– Normal nurseries: 31
– EETC (Heep Kong Society): 78
– (Among the 109 children, the demographic data of 17 children
is not available)
Study method and
Procedure:
• Method
– Written consent obtained before the interview
– Demographic data
– Self-administered Part A questionnaire
– Tests:
1. Checklist for Autism in Toddlers 3rd Edition
(CHAT-3)
2. Symbolic Play Test
3. Reynell
4. The Functional Independence Measure (WeeFIM)
–
We conducted tests 1-3 in the children of normal nursery (as the parents are
present), and conducted all the 4 tests in the children of EETC.
Study method and Procedure
• Schedule:
–
–
–
–
29/4- First meeting and interview
28/5- Briefing session
28-29/5-1st field trip (Portland Street)
6/6- Workshop: training and inter-rater
correlation
Study Method and Procedure
• Schedule
– 10/6- Toys collection, inter-rater
correlation
– 11-25/6- Field trip and data entry
– 17/6- mid- evaluation and inter-rater
correlation
– 21-27/6- Data analysis
– 27/6- Presentation
Toy Collection
Field Trip
SKH St Thomas DC
Tam To Centre (EETC)
CHAT-3 Centre Visit
Schedule
Date
07/06/2002
Centre
Type
Jessie & Thomas Tam
Centre
EETC
SKH St Thomas DC
Normal
Nursery
Leung King Centre
EETC
12/06/2002
Cheerland DN & DC
Normal
Nursery
13/06/2002
Jockey Club Centre
EETC
Pak Tin Centre
EETC
Shun Lee Centre
EETC
11/06/2002
CHAT-3 Centre Visit Schedule
(continue)
Date
14/06/2002
Centre
Type
Cheerland DN & DC
Normal Nursery
Kwok Yip Lin Houn Cnetre
EETC
17/02/2002
St James Settlement
Kathleen McDonall CCC
Normal Nursery
18/02/2002
Jessie & Thomas Tam
Centre
EETC
19/02/2002
St James Settlement
Kathleen McDonall CCC
Normal Nursery
24/02/2002
25/02/2002
HKSPC Portland Street DC
Normal Nursery
HKSPC Chan Kwan Biu Mem.
Foundation DC
Normal Nursery
HKSPC Esther Lee DC
Normal Nursery
Data Analysis: 21 June, 2002
Study method and Procedure:
• Analysis
– interrater correlation (>0.95) by taking data
from same parents at least by 2 interviewers
• 100% was attained for Chat B and Symbolic Play Test
– Grouped according to
• chronological and mental age
• status of health and diagnosis (autism / PDD,
developmental delay, cerebral palsy, multiple
handicaps and normal)
– Double-blinded and controlled paired up
Study method and
Procedure:
• Analysis (continue)
– For children who have been diagnosed as AD or
PDD, results of CHAT-3 are compared with the
previously charted diagnosis to show the
validity
– For those who hasn’t been previously diagnosed
as PDD / AD but picked up by CHAT-3 will be
assessed using Autism Diagnostic InterviewRevised (AIDR, Catherine Lord et al (1994)) to
confirm the diagnosis
Result:
Chronological Age distribution of the subjects:
Age distribution of the subjects (up to 19/06)
12
10
8
6
4
Std. Dev = 9.77
2
Mean = 34.9
N = 92.00
0
17.5
22.5
20.0
27.5
25.0
32.5
30.0
Age at test (mos)
37.5
35.0
42.5
40.0
47.5
45.0
52.5
50.0
57.5
55.0
60.0
•All the children are
aged between 18
months and 6 years
old.
•Youngest: 18
months old
•Eldest: 59 months
old
•Aged between 18
and 36 months:
60.9%
Symbolic Play Test - Age
Symbolic Play Test - Age (months)
12
10
8
6
4
Std. Dev = 7.27
2
Mean = 25.0
N = 109.00
0
.0
36
.0
34
.0
32
.0
30
.0
28
.0
26
.0
24
.0
22
.0
20
.0
18
.0
16
.0
14
.0
12
SPT (Age)
Reynell - Age
Reynell Verbal Expression - Age (yr.mo)
Reynell Expressive Expression - Age (yr.mo)
10
12
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
Count
2
0
Missing 1.030
1.010
1.100
1.080
verbal exp
2.030
2.010
2.080
2.060
3.000
2.100
3.040
3.020
3.105
3.080
4.010
3.600
4.095
4.040
2
0
Missing
1.030
1.000
1.100
1.070
expressive exp
2.050
2.010
2.110
2.080
3.060
3.020
4.005
3.100
6.550
4.055
Result:
• Gender
•Boys: 66
Girls
•Girls: 43
Boys
Boys
Girls
Result: Diagnosis
Diagnosis
No. of subject Percentage
Mental retardation
or delayed
development
Cerebral palsy
54
51.4%
1
1.0%
Pervasive
developmental
disorders (include
autism)
3
2.9%
Multiple handicaps
4
3.8%
Normal
43
41%
Handedness of the subjects
Handedness
bilateral
left
Missing
right
Head Circumference of the subjects
Head circumference (cm)
>51
Missing
<=40.99
41-45.99
46-50.99
Demographic Data of Father
Eduction level of father
Occupation of father
Primary school (P.6)
Unskilled
Missing
Missing
Semi-skilled
Professional
Intermediate
Skilled - Maual and
University degree or
Secondary school (F.
Matriculate / Diplom
Demographic Data of Mother
Occupation of mother
Eduction level of mother
Missing
No official educatio
Primary school (P.6)
Missing
Professional
Unskilled
Intermediate
University degree or
Matriculate / Diplom
Skilled - Manual and
Semi-skilled
Secondary school (F.
Domestic helper
Domestic Helper
yes
No
Missing
CHAT-3
CHAT
• 1. Results of CHAT A
• 2. Results of CHAT B
• 3. Internal consistency of CHAT
CHAT A
• Difference between normal ,autistic and
developmental delay subjects in:
• 1. Total scores
• 2. Scores in the 6 discriminative items
Notes
• Questions 1 and 16 are buffer questions
• those who fail either of the 2 buffer
questions are excluded from the
analysis ;
• There are 5 normal and 9 developmental
delay subjects being excluded
Failing definition
• CHAT A : fail 3 or more questions in
the whole chat A
• The 6 discriminative items : fail 2 or
more questions among the six
Total scores - normal
subjects
SUM23
M
12
Frequency
u
la
10
r
u
P
c
c
e
e
e
e
V
1
4
2
3
3
3
1
5
1
6
1
4
8
1
6
1
6
1
5
1
7
4
5
5
0
6
1
8
2
3
3
3
1
9
8
1
0
3
4
2
0
0
3
3
5
2
1
3
9
4
9
2
2
2
1
6
1
0
T
o
2
2
0
0
M
S
y
6
8
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
22.00
T
o
8
0
15.00
SUM23
17.00
19.00
21.00
Failing rate of normal
subjects in CHAT A
80
S
S
60
Percent
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
e
e
V
.
0
7
5
5
40
1
5
5
0
2
0 T
M
S
8
20
T
0
Missing
PASS23
73.7% of normal subjects fail chat A
.00
1.00
Results of normal
subjects in the six
discriminative items
SUM6Q
M
30
Frequency
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
e
V
3
1
6
9
9
4
1
6
9
7
20
5
6
8
1
9
6
7
1
1
0
T
5
1
0
M
S
3
9
T
8
0
10
0
3.00
SUM6Q
4.00
5.00
6.00
Failing rate of normal in
the 6 discriminative
items
100
80
S
Percent
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
e
60
V
.
0
3
7
7
1
3
0
0 T
40
M
S
9
T
20
0
Missing
PASS6Q
5.3 % of normal fail the 6 items
.00
1.00
Total scores - autistic
subjects
SUM23
1.2
1.0
M
.8
Frequency
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
.6
V
7
3
3
3
9
3
3
7
1
3
3
0
.4
T
0
0
.2
0.0
7.00
SUM23
9.00
18.00
Failing rate of autistic
subjects in CHAT A
S
u
u
P
c
c
.
0 V
All autistic subjects fail chat A
Results of autistic
subjects in the 6
discriminative items
SUM6Q
1.2
1.0
M
.8
Frequency
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
.6
V
.
0
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
7
.4
6
1
3
3
0
T
3
0
0
.2
0.0
.00
SUM6Q
1.00
6.00
failing rate of autistic
subjects in the 6
discriminative items
70
60
50
S
40
Percent
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
30
V
.
0
7
7
7
1
3
3
0
20
T
0
0
10
0
.00
PASS6Q
66.7 % of autistic subjects fail the 6 items
1.00
Total scores developmental delay
subjects
SUM23
M
16
Frequency
u
l
a
u
r
P
c
c
e
e
e
e
14
V
1
3
a
1
0
2
2
1
4
2
0
4
7
12
1
5
8
0
8
4
1
6
6
0
3
8
10
1
7
2
0
4
2
1
8
5
0
1
3
1
9
8
4
0
1
4
2
0
4
0
9
3
2
1
6
2
0
4
8
2
2
1
0
2
0
T
o
5
0
0
4
M
S
y
5
0
T
o
0
0
2
0
13.00
15.00
14.00
SUM23
17.00
16.00
19.00
18.00
21.00
20.00
22.00
Failing rate of
developmental delay
subjects in CHAT A
100
80
60
S
S
Percent
u
l
u
P
c
c
e
e
V
.
0
0
3
3
40
1
0
7
0
0
0 T
M
S
0
T
20
0
Missing
.00
PASS23
84 % of developmental delay subjects fail chat A
1.00
Results of developmental
delay subjects in the six
discriminative items
SUM6Q
30
M
Frequency
u
l
r
u
P
c
c
e
e
e
e
20
V
2
1
0
1
1
3
2
0
2
3
4
9
0
8
0
5
2
0
0
0
6
4
0
0
0
10
T
8
0
0
M
S
2
0
T
0
0
0
2.00
SUM6Q
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
developmental delay
subjects in the 6
discriminative items
80
60
S
Percent
u
l
40
u
P
c
c
e
e
V
.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0 T
M
S
20
T
0
Missing
.00
PASS6Q
24 % of developmental delay subjects fail the 6 items
1.00
Failing rate
Normal
Autistic
Developmental delay
Total
73.7 %
100%
84 %
6 questions
5.3 %
66.7 %
24 %
• In conclusion, the six items are more
sensitive than other questions in
discriminating autistic children from
normal and developmental delay
children
CHAT B
• Difference between normal, delay
development and autistic subjects in:
• 1. Eye contact
• 2. Gaze monitoring
• 3. Pretend play
• 4. Protodeclarative pointing
CHAT B - Q1- Eye
contact
Normal subjects
• Eye contact:
•
•
usually, sometimes = Pass (1);
seldom., never = Fail (0)
NEWB1
• All the subjects
passed the test.
1.00
Autistic Subjects
• All the autistic
subjects failed the
test.
NEWB1
.00
Delay Development
• Pass = 1 (91.5%)
• Fail = 0 (8.5%)
.00
• Conclusion:
• All autistic subjects failed
in eye contact, while most
of the other subjects
passed the test.
1.00
monitoring
‘小明 ,你睇…’
Normal subjects
•
Result of Q2 in normal subjects
1
2
Fail = 1 (2.3 %)
Pass = 2 (97.7%)
Autistic subjects
Results
1
2
Pass= 2 (66.7%)
Fail = 1 (33.3%)
Delay Development
Results
1
2
Pass= 2 ( 96.6% )
Fail = 1 (3.4%)
Conclusion
•• Gaze
monitoring
.
• Most of the normal ( 97.7 %) , delay
development (96.6%) and autistic
subjects (66.7%) pass the test.
• This test may not be sensitive
enough to distinguish autistic
subjects from others.
Q3 - Pretend Play ‘ 倒茶
茶’
Normal subjects
Result of Q3 in normal subjects
1
2
3
3 : yes(90.7%)
2 : simulate only(7%)
1 : no(2.3%)
Autistic subjects
3
u
u
P
c
c
V
1
7
7
3
3
0
T
0
Developmental Delay
• Yes = 3 (83.1%)
• Simulate only = 2
(10.2%)
• No = 1 (5.1%)
Missing
1
2
3
Conclusion
• Pretend Play
• Most normal (90.7%) and delay
development subjects (83.1%) passed
the test.
• Most autistic subjects (66.7%)
failed the test.
pointing
‘燈燈呢?’
Normal subjects
Result of Q4 in normal subjects
1
2
4
4 : point and look(83.7%)
2 : look only(11.6%)
3 : point only(0%)
1 : no(4.7%)
Autistic subjects
• Point and look = 4 (33.3%)
• Look only = 2 (66.7%)
4
2
Developmental Delay
• Point and look = 4
(54.2%)
• Point only = 3 (1.7%)
• Look only = 2 (22.8%)
• No = 1 (15.3%)
1
4
2
3
Conclusion
• Protodeclarative Pointing:
• Most of the normal (83.7%) and delay
development subjects (54.2%)
achieved high scores.
• Most autistic subjects (66.7%) failed
in the test.
Q4 First object the child
responses
Normal subjects
2
u
u
P
c
c
V
L
9
2
3
3
B
3
2
7
0
c
8
6
5
6
d
1
3
4
0
T
1
3
0
M
9
2
7
T
3
0
Autistic subjects
2
u
u
P
c
c
V
L
7
7
B
3
0
T
0
Developmental Delay
2
u
u
P
c
c
V
N
4
8
1
1
L
4
7
5
6
B
3
0
5
2
c
3
1
8
0
T
4
6
0
M
9
5
4
T
9
0
Internal consistency of
CHAT
• To check the consistence between
• 1. Q7 in part A (A7)and Q4 in part B(B4) ,
where both focus on protodeclarative
pointing
• 2. Q5 in part A(A5) and Q3 in part B(B3),
where both focus on pretend play
• We are checking the consistency
seperately for :
• 1. Normal subjects
• 2. Autistic subjects
• 3. Developmental delay subjects
Normal subjects : A7 and
B4
W
C
W
0
o
0
0
B
1
1
N
2
4
4
1
T
6
Normal subjects : A5 and
B3
N
C
3
o
1
2
3
N
.
2
2
1
0
4
T
2
6
Autistic subjects : A7
and B4
N
C
4
o
2
4
N
.
1
T
Autistic subjects : A5
and B3
N
C
3
o
1
3
N
.
1
T
Developmental delay
subjects : A7 and B4
N
C
4
o
1
2
4
N
.
0
8
1
7
1
T
7
9
Developmental delay
subjects : A5 and B3
N
C
3
o
1
2
3
N
.
4
6
1
8
3
T
2
9
Symbolic Play Tests
Local table of
‘Age equivalent of score’
Repor t
CAGE
Mean
23.000
28.000
33.000
40.500
33.000
34.500
29.500
33.875
37.000
36.000
46.500
32.944
N
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
18
50
40
30
20
CAGE
SPT_T
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
21
22
23
Total
Std.
Deviation
7.071
.
.
.
.
2.121
6.614
5.297
.
.
.
6.682
10
8
10
SPT_T
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Local table of
‘Age equivalent of score’
Limitations
• There are not enough sample in each
age group
• The children in normal nurseries are
shy to play with the toys
Local table of
‘Age equivalent of score’
Suggestion:
• Follow up of missing data
• Continue data collection of normal
children
A New Symbolic Play Test
Situation III
CURRENT SPT
NEW SPT
• Relates knife or
• Relates chopsticks
fork to plate
to bowl
• Relates fork, knife, • Relates chopsticks
or plate to table
or bowl to table
• Relates spoon, fork,
• Relates chopsticks
knife, or plate to
or bowl to doll
doll
SPT Situation III
Drawbacks of the new set:
• The size of chopsticks and bowl are
not proportional to other toys.
• The chopsticks and bowl are bigger
and attract children to play with
them.
SPT Situation III
Suggestion:
• Modify the size of toys
Situation IV
CURRENT SPT
• Moves tractor or
trailer along
• Relates log(s) to
tractor, trailer or man
• Lines up tractor and
trailer
• Attaches tractor to
trailer
NEW SPT
• Moves train along
• Put train cars on rail
• Lines up train cars
• Attaches train cars
SPT Situation IV
Drawbacks of new set:
• It cannot replace the current one
because there are no man and logs.
• Some new items cannot be compared
with that of current items:
Put engine on either end
Put train cars on rail
SPT Situation IV
Suggestion:
• Modify the design of toys
Current: Relates knife or fork to plate
New: Relates chopsticks to bowl
0
1
EETC
Current
Total
0
1
Nursery Current
Total
0
1
Overall* Current
Total
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
12
4
16
7
3
10
19
7
26
0
New
1
21
24
45
11
10
21
32
34
66
Total
33
28
61
18
13
31
51
41
92
Current: Relates fork, knife, or plate to table
New: Relates chopsticks or bowl to table
New
EETC*
Current
Nursery Current
*
Overall* Current
*
* p<0.05
0
1
Total
0
1
Total
0
1
Total
** p<0.01
17
7
24
7
2
9
24
9
33
0
14
22
36
8
14
22
22
36
58
1
Total
31
29
60
15
16
31
46
45
91
Current: Relates spoon, fork, knife, or plate to
doll
New: Relates chopsticks or bowl to doll
New
0
1
EETC** Current
Total
0
1
Nursery Current
Total
*
0
1
Overall* Current
Total
*
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
42
4
46
18
4
22
60
8
68
0
6
8
14
4
5
9
10
13
23
1
Total
48
12
60
22
9
31
70
21
91
Current: Moves tractor or trailer along
New: Moves train along
New
0
1
EETC
Current
Total
0
1
Nursery Current
Total
0
1
Overall Current
Total
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
1
8
9
0
1
1
1
9
10
0
6
50
56
0
30
30
6
80
86
1
Total
7
58
65
0
31
31
7
89
96
Current: Relates log(s) to tractor, trailer or man
New: Put train cars on rail
New
0
1
EETC
Current
Total
0
1
Nursery Current
Total
0
1
Overall Current
Total
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
8
16
24
0
4
4
8
20
28
0
9
31
40
7
20
27
16
51
67
1
Total
17
47
64
7
24
31
24
71
95
Current: Lines up tractor and trailer
New: Lines up train cars
New
0
1
EETC** Current
Total
0
1
Nursery Current
Total
0
1
Overall* Current
Total
*
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
25
2
27
8
1
9
33
3
36
0
19
20
39
13
9
22
32
29
61
1
Total
44
22
66
21
10
31
65
32
97
Current: Attaches tractor to trailer
New: Attaches tractor to trailer
New
0
1
EETC** Current
Total
0
1
Nursery Current
Total
0
1
Overall* Current
Total
*
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
42
3
45
15
1
16
57
4
61
0
13
8
21
12
3
15
25
11
36
1
Total
55
11
66
27
4
31
82
15
97
Mean Score
Situation
III
Curren
t
New
3.48
Situation
IV
Curren
t
New
3.43
Curren
t
14.46
3.92
3.86
Correlati
on
Sig.
0.909
0.000
0.768
0.001
Reynell Analysis
Reynell Analysis
• Subjects divided into
– Normal children
– Children from EETC
– Total
Correlation Test
• Spearman’s correlation test used
• Variables :
–
–
–
–
verbal comprehension(Reynell)
Language expression(Reynell)
SPT(age)
Age at test
e
Normal
l
a
b
s
t
a
s
(
e
A
i
l
S
S
C
p
1
0
2
3
8
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
4
.
N
2
3
2
2
9
v
C
9
2
0
3
7
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
1
.
N
2
2
2
1
8
e
C
x
6
3
3
0
4
*
*
*
S
1
0
0
3
.
N
2
2
1
2
8
A
C
0
8
7
4
0
*
*
*
S
4
1
3
.
N
2
9
8
8
9
*
*
C
*
.
C
Results: Normal
• All are statistically significant with p
value smaller than 0.05
• All shows positive correlation
• All except the correlation between
age and language exp(0.464) shows r
>0.5
• Strongest correlation between
language exp and verbal
comprehension(0.703)
EETC
l
a
b
s
e
a
s
( s
A
i
S
A
C
0
2
3
6
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
9
9
4
3
S
C
2
0
5
4
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
9
2
5
4
v
C
3
5
0
2
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
4
5
5
4
e
C
6
4
2
0
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
3
4
4
4
*
C
Result:EETC
• All results are statistically
significant
• All shows positive correlation
• All have r >0.7
• Best correlation between language
expression and verbal
comprehension(0.902)
• Generally good correlation between
age and SPT , age and Reynell (r>0.8)
Overall
l
a
b
s
e
a
s
( s
A
i
S
A
C
0
4
1
0
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
2
2
6
5
S
C
4
0
0
5
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
2
9
1
0
v
C
1
0
0
2
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
6
1
1
9
e
C
0
5
2
0
*
*
*
S
0
0
0
.
N
5
0
9
0
*
C
Result: Overall
• A combined picture of the results of
normal children and children from
EETC
• All results are statistically
significant
• All correlations are positive
• All have r > 0.6
• Best correlation between language
expression and verbal comprehension
Comment
• Result from EETC shows better
correlations than from normal
nurseries
• Children perform well in part I of the
Reynell likely to do well also in
Reynell part II
• Children perform well in SPT also
likely to perform well in Reynell
• Older kids generally perform better
WeeFIM
WeeFIM
• Aims
• Subject: all EETC
• 3 catagories
– Self Care Domain Rating
– Mobility Domain Rating
– Cognition Domain Rating
• Total WeeFIM Rating
• Method: face-to-face interview
Results
• Descriptive data
• Method:
– Catagorize
– Chi-square test
• Significant (p <0.05)
– SPT age
– Reynell
– Intra-correlation With WeeFIM raw score
•
•
•
•
•
•
Descriptive Data
8 EETC; 78 Children
70 valid WeeFIM
Gender: boys (65.7%) & girls (34.3%)
Chronological Age: 70% between 31 to 40 m
Some are developmental delay (74%)
WF Total: 60% less than 26 months
(According to Western Norm Data)
WFTOTAL
10
8
6
4
Std. Dev = 18.16
2
Mean = 63.8
N = 70.00
0
.0
95 0
.
90 0
.
85 0
.
80 0
.
75 0
.
70 0
.
65 0
.
60 0
.
55 0
.
50 0
.
45 0
.
40 0
.
35 0
.
30 0
.
25
WFTOTAL
Dermographic data with
WeeFIM
All are not significant
• Gender
• Chronological age
• Head circumference
• Parents’ occupation, education level
• Diagnosis
• Domestic helper
Chat A with WeeFIM
• Not significant
– WF1, WF2, WF3 against Chat A
• Reason
– WeeFIM –mainly related to the
performance status
SPT-age with WeeFIM
• Significant
– WF1(p=0.001)
– WF2 (p=0.05)
– WF total (p=0.001)
• Not significant
– WF3 (p=0.089)
• Proposed Reasons:
– Expected to be related
to mental age
– Subjects with isolated
speech delay
– Parents may not notice
in details
• At nurseries
• At home
– “I haven’t tried it BUT...”
Reynell Verbal with
WeeFIM
• All are significant
–
–
–
–
WF1 (p=0.000)
WF2 (p=0.000)
WF3 (p=0.003)
WF Total (p=0.000)
Reynell Expression with
WeeFIM
• Significant
– WF1 (p=0.000)
– WF3 (p=0.016)
– WF Total (p=0.000)
• Not significant
– WF2 (p=0.082)
• WF2 and Reynell
Expression are
independently
related to age
Intra-correlation
WF1
WF1
WF2
WF3
WF T
0.000
0.047
0.000
0.001
0.000
WF2
0.000
WF3
0.047
0.001
WF T
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.005
Problem encountered
• Rating is not reliable
• Parents may not notice minor items
or not notice the items questioned in
WeeFIM
Video demonstration
• Case 1 – prematurity
• Case 2 – Prematurity
• Case 3 – Preparation