ArticlePloS one2019
Concurrent validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development III in China.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Early-Life Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Child Language and Communication Development: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Development Assessment Scale for Indian Infants: A Systematic Review and Perspective on Dwindling Cutoffs.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Early childhood development and parental training interventions in rural China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2021Pooled it
- Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Balancing precision and affordability in assessing infant development in large-scale mortality trials: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2025Trial
- Protective and risk factors for caregiver mental health: a mediation analysis in a rural Chinese cohort of mothers and grandmothers caring for young children.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Improving the accuracy of fetal growth restriction diagnosis by integrating fetal genetic growth potential: a proof of concept study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Measuring child development at the 2-2½-year health and development review in England: a rapid scoping review of available tools.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Association between prenatal exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and early language development in the ECHO cohort.Neurotoxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- Infant gut microbiota and SCFAs mediate the association between early-life human milk microbiota and neurodevelopment.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- Screen Exposure and Early Childhood Development in Resource-Limited Regions: Findings From a Population-Based Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Concurrent Validity of the Bayley Screening and the Bayley-III in Persian-Speaking Children.Iranian journal of child neurology · 2025Article
- Do maternal and paternal education protect against developmental delays?Research in developmental disabilities · 2024Article
- Place-Based Child Opportunity at Birth and Child Development from Infancy to Age 4.The Journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Early cognitive assessment in premature infants: the discriminatory value of eye-tracking vs. Bayley Scales.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Identification and prediction model of placenta-brain axis genes associated with neurodevelopmental delay in moderate and late preterm children.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of ASQ for screening of neurodevelopmental delays in low resource countries.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Displacement of peer play by screen time: associations with toddler development.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- Concurrent validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire Inventory and the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development in rural Bangladesh.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choosing a valid and feasible method to measure child developmental outcomes is key to addressing developmental delays, which have been shown to be associated with high levels of unemployment, participation in crime, and teen pregnancies. However, measuring early childhood development (ECD) with multi-dimensional diagnostic tests such as the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III (Bayley-III) can be time-consuming and expensive; therefore, parental screening tools such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) are frequently an alternative measure of early childhood development in large-scale research. The ASQ is also becoming more frequently used as the first step to identify children at risk for developmental delays before conducting a diagnostic test to confirm. However, the effectiveness of the ASQ-3 is uncertain. In this study, we evaluate the accuracy of the ASQ-3 as a screening measure for children at risk of developmental delay in rural China by age group. To do so, we administered the Bayley-III, widely considered to be the "gold standard" of ECD diagnostic tests, to a sample of 1,831 five to twenty-four month-old children and also administered the ASQ-3 to their caregivers. We then compared the outcomes of the ASQ-3 test to those of the Bayley-III. We find that the ASQ-3 was significantly though weakly correlated with the Bayley-III and that the strength of this correlation increased with child age and was stronger when the mother was the primary caregiver (as compared to the grandmother). We also find that the sensitivity and specificity of ASQ-3 ranged widely. The overall findings suggest that the ASQ-3 may not be a very accurate screening tool for identifying developmentally delayed children, especially for children under 13 months of age or children whose primary caregiver is not the mother.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.