Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40489453›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Measuring Child Labor: The Who's, the Where's, the When's, and the Why's.

Guilherme Lichand, Sharon Wolf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guilherme LichandGraduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9118-1745
Sharon WolfGraduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measuring child labor accurately is a major challenge: parents' and children's reports tend to differ dramatically, and there is typically no way to verify whose reports are truthful (if any). To overcome this challenge, this paper uses novel data from a cocoa certifier in Côte d'Ivoire that draws on satellite imagery to minimize under-reporting. Concretely, aerial photos allow them to select remote and hard-to-reach communities-where parents typically have not been sensitized by government or NGOs, averting social desirability biases-and to visit these communities while cocoa is being harvested-precisely when children in employment are very visible, making it easier for enumerators to impute it if parents still fail to report it. We compare their figures with those obtained from business-as-usual surveys with parents and children in these regions, and find that (1) reporting inconsistencies between parents and their children in fact decrease with household remoteness; (2) adults dramatically under-report child labor relative to the certifier data, by a factor of at least 60%; and (3) in turn, children self-reports are statistically identical to the latter. Taking advantage of an experiment that randomly assigned a text-message campaign to discourage child labor, we further show that parents' reports not only underestimate its prevalence, but can even lead to the wrong conclusions about the effects of policy interventions.

Indexed as

Child LaborAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolCote d'IvoireFemaleHumansMaleParentsSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID40489453
PMCPMC12148184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.