SynthesisBMJ open2025
Psychometric properties of early childhood development assessment tools in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caregiver mental health is associated with early childhood language outcomes and perception bias in rural China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predictive and concurrent validity of caregiver reported early childhood development assessments: A prospective cohort study of Tanzanian children.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Adaptation and pilot testing of the Early Learning Outcome Measure (ELOM) (4&5) Years Assessment tool in South African Sign Language.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Determinants of Early Child Development.Sage open pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveValid and reliable measurement of early childhood development (ECD) is critical for monitoring and evaluating ECD-related policies and programmes. Although ECD tools developed in high-income countries may be applicable to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), directly applying them in LMICs can be problematic without psychometric evidence for new cultures and contexts. Our objective was to systematically appraise available evidence on the psychometric properties of tools used to measure ECD in LMIC.
designA systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, SciELO and BVS were searched from inception to February 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that examined the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of tools assessing ECD in children 0-6 years of age living in LMICs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Each study was independently screened by two researchers and data extracted by one randomly assigned researcher. Risk of bias was assessed using a checklist developed by the study team assessing bias due to training/administration, selective reporting and missing data. Results were synthesised narratively by country, location, age group at assessment and developmental domain.
resultsA total of 160 articles covering 117 tools met inclusion criteria. Most reported psychometric properties were internal consistency reliability (n=117, 64%), concurrent validity (n=81, 45%), convergent validity (n=74, 41%), test-retest reliability (n=73, 40%) and structural validity (n=72, 40%). Measurement invariance was least commonly reported (n=16, 9%). Most articles came from Brazil, China, India and South Africa. Most psychometric evidence was from urban (n=92, 51%) or urban-rural (n=41, 23%) contexts. Study samples focused on children aged 6-17.9 or 48-59.9 months. The most assessed developmental domains were language (n=111, 61%), motor (n=104, 57%) and cognitive (n=82, 45%). Bias due to missing data was most common.
conclusionsPsychometric evidence is fragmented, limited and heterogeneous. More rigorous psychometric analyses, especially on measurement invariance, are needed to establish the quality and accuracy of ECD tools for use in LMICs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022372305.
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.