ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Validity, Reliability, Accessibility, and Applicability of Young Children's Developmental Screening and Assessment Tools across Different Demographics: A Realist Review.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Japanese Version of the Functional Listening Index-Paediatric (FLI-P(J)): Translation, Normative Data, and Clinical Feasibility.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bringing developmental assessment to the 21st century: The NIH Baby Toolbox.Infant behavior & development · 2025Article
- Recent challenges in children's developmental milestones.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Perinatal Predictors and Mediators of Attachment Patterns in Preschool Children: Exploration of Children's Contributions in Interactions with Mothers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impacts of COVID-19 on mothers' and newborns' health outcomes in regional Canada: A cross-sectional analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Valid and reliable developmental screening and assessment tools allow professionals to identify disabilities/delays in children, enabling timely intervention to limit adverse lifelong impacts on health. However, differences in child development related to culture, genetics, and perinatal outcomes may impact tool applicability. This study evaluated the validity, reliability, and accessibility of multidomain developmental screening tools for young children, analyzed the applicability of tools across different contexts, and created a compendium of tools. Employing adapted realist review methods, we searched APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, and Google to identify relevant articles and information. We assessed accessibility, validity, reliability, and contextual applicability (N = 4110 evidence sources) to create tool ratings and make recommendations. Of 33 identified tools, 22 were screening and 11 were assessment tools. Fewer screening tools than assessment tools were rated highly overall. Evidence for use in different cultures was often lacking for both types of tools. The ASQ (screening) and BDI (assessment) tools were rated most favorably and are recommended for use, though other tools may be more applicable in different contexts (e.g., NEPSY among children with Asperger's Syndrome). Future research should focus on assessing the validity and reliability of tools across different demographics to increase accessibility and ensure all children are properly supported.
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.