Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41638720›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Measuring child development at the 2-2½-year health and development review in England: a rapid scoping review of available tools.

Joanna Lysons, Rocio Mendez Pineda, German Alarcon, Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Hannah Cann, Diane Stoianov, Pasco Fearon, Sally Kendall, Jennifer Kirman, Melissa Gladstone and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Early child development in England: cross-sectional analysis of ASQInternational journal of population data science · 2024
    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

11 authors.

Joanna LysonsCentre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0668-0484
Rocio Mendez PinedaSocial Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.
German AlarconRREAL: Rapid Research, Evaluation and Appraisal Lab, University College London, London, England, UK.
Maria Raisa Jessica AquinoPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3989-1221
Hannah CannSocial Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Diane StoianovChildren and Families Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, England, UK.
Pasco FearonCentre for Child, Adolescent and Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK.
Sally KendallCentre for Health Services studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2507-0350
Jennifer KirmanSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Melissa GladstoneWomen and Children's Health, University of Liverpool Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2579-9301
Jenny WoodmanSocial Research Institute, University College London, London, UK j.woodman@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-4177

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAll children in England should receive a health review at 2-2½ years, with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire third edition (ASQ-3) used to collect public health surveillance data on child development. However, practitioners also value tools that assess individual children's development-consistent with ASQ-3's original purpose. Concerns about licensing costs and barriers to digitalisation have prompted interest in alternative tools to the ASQ-3 in England.

designTo inform policy, we conducted a rapid scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines to identify tools that can measure or assess early child development. DATA SOURCES: Searched PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science from January 2012 to November 2022, with targeted search update November 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included English-language studies published after January 2012 that described or evaluated tools in English which could measure or assess early child development in children <5 years across five domains: motor, cognitive, communicative, social and emotional. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted key features and reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity of tools which could feasibly be implemented at the 2-2½-year review (eg, including multiple age versions and <30 min to use). We used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-I to assess risk of bias.

resultsWe identified 112 unique publications describing 34 tools; six met our feasibility criteria for the 2-2½-year review (reported in 53 studies). Only ASQ-3 and CREDI offer domain-specific scoring-a government priority. ASQ-3 moderately detects mild delays and performs better for severe delays in at-risk groups. Caregiver Reported Early Development Instruments (CREDI) was designed for public health surveillance, and we do not yet know how it performs for individual assessment.

conclusionsASQ-3 and CREDI are most promising for use at the 2-2½-year review. However, we lack UK-based validation and norming studies, even for ASQ-3. Ultimately, careful implementation and integration into existing systems will determine a tool's value for identifying developmental needs, supporting families and producing high quality data for public health surveillance.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentChild HealthHealth SurveysChild, PreschoolEnglandFeasibility StudiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityChildCommunity child healthHealthHealth policyPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID41638720
PMCPMC12878457

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.