View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Designing Equity-Centered Early Learning Assessments for Today's Young Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Designing Equity-Centered Early Learning Assessments for Today's Young Children
Language: English
Authors: Emily C. Hanno (ORCID 0000-0002-9136-4293), Ximena A. Portilla (ORCID 0000-0002-7705-0693), JoAnn Hsueh
Source: Child Development Perspectives. 2025 19(2):92-98.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Young Children, Child Development, Equal Education, Evaluation Methods, Measurement Techniques, Preschool Education, Test Content, Skills, Technology Uses in Education, Computer Assisted Testing, Artificial Intelligence, Data Use
DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12528
ISSN: 1750-8592
1750-8606
Abstract: In this article, we adopt culturally relevant perspectives on developmental science that acknowledge and value the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of young children and their families to identify opportunities to advance the measurement of early childhood development. We focus on direct child assessments that can drive more equitable early learning experiences and outcomes by informing the work of educators and program- and system-level decision-makers. Specifically, we describe potential advancements in the "content" (what is measured), "method" (how assessments are conducted), and "output" (how data are presented) of early learning assessments. Throughout, we highlight opportunities to elevate the experiences of those who use assessment--children, families, educators, and administrators--to develop equity-centered, engaging assessments that provide comprehensive, fair, and useful insights.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1469516
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFKEu6pcg02sRS5n1IQyokIAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB9tBqrkMw8d9BnrrQIBEICBm392q2G5dANImDaKvK-DdxsTUZZwgwzgD1_iQWbCnYoVdOb3vQlIgI5iJ6Q4n8XDrFUS6zQEd6KvEZm0pQHem4reubwWX9GbUkryLRPQU1w0Yy58YFVEkZsWc6WDijSV3jFcqlN3dQoHXmN95AZKx4gz9F025YvO7GSkxcq7s_aePHB73L6xT6_5Wr_QEcSM5xfXuFRyJEJx_TFp
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184868898;[30rc]01jun.25;2025May05.05:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184868898-1">Designing equity‐centered early learning assessments for today's young children </title> <p>In this article, we adopt culturally relevant perspectives on developmental science that acknowledge and value the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of young children and their families to identify opportunities to advance the measurement of early childhood development. We focus on direct child assessments that can drive more equitable early learning experiences and outcomes by informing the work of educators and program‐ and system‐level decision‐makers. Specifically, we describe potential advancements in the content (what is measured), method (how assessments are conducted), and output (how data are presented) of early learning assessments. Throughout, we highlight opportunities to elevate the experiences of those who use assessment—children, families, educators, and administrators—to develop equity‐centered, engaging assessments that provide comprehensive, fair, and useful insights.</p> <p>Keywords: early childhood education; early learning assessment; equity</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Abbreviations</item> <p></p> <item> AI artificial intelligence</item> <p></p> <item> ASR automatic speech recognition</item> <p></p> <item> CAT computer adaptive testing</item> <p></p> <item> QUILS Quick Interactive Language Screener</item> <p></p> <item> REMA Research‐based Early Math Assessment</item> <p></p> <item> TS GOLD Teaching Strategies GOLD</item> </ulist> <p>Early childhood is a period of impressive growth across developmental domains. Between the ages of 3 and 5 years, children acquire basic academic skills in areas like math and literacy, while also building foundational social and emotional skills and approaches to learning. Our ability to understand early development across these areas relies on assessments that capture what young children know and can do. Indeed, data from assessments are widely used for a variety of purposes, such as documenting individual children's skill levels, informing instruction, and identifying promising programs and policies (Mattera & Choi, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>]). Using tools in these ways can be impactful: In a multistate study of early educators in the United States, 88% reported using assessment data to plan lessons or instruction (deMonsabert et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]). Empirical research further suggests that frequent assessments can positively influence children's development through changes in instruction (Im, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although assessments are widely used for understanding children's development, many current measures are limited in their ability to offer comprehensive, fair, and useful insights. Most existing assessments are built from White, middle‐class assumptions of what constitutes learning and achievement (Hsueh, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]). Rarely do these assessments consider the racial, ethnic, linguistic, and economic diversity of today's young children. In this article, we highlight culturally relevant priorities in the creation of direct child assessments that accurately capture early childhood development. We use the term <emph>culturally relevant</emph> to refer to the recognition that children's experiences taking assessments are influenced by the backgrounds they bring to early learning settings (Cataldo, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref5">7</reflink>]; Ladson‐Billings, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]). By adopting this lens, we illuminate opportunities to advance early childhood measurement by drawing connections to children's backgrounds to capture more precisely what children from all cultural and sociodemographic backgrounds know and can do. We focus on tools aimed at generating insights to inform practitioners' work, while also addressing questions about programs and policies. Although this work does not speak explicitly to other types of assessments (e.g., screeners to identify children with special needs), many of the challenges and opportunities we describe are relevant to any kind of measure of children's skills and abilities. (For the sociodemographic characteristics of the empirical studies reviewed herein, refer to Table S1).</p> <p>Specifically, we address three aspects of assessments that are ripe for equity‐centered innovation: First, we discuss the <emph>content</emph> of assessments, considering how measures can capture competencies reflecting the strengths and priorities of all communities. Second, we focus on the <emph>method</emph> of assessment collection, exploring approaches to reduce bias and alleviate burdens on children and assessors. Finally, we consider the <emph>output</emph> that comes from assessments, with a focus on evaluating the usefulness of assessment data for aligning practices and decisions with the science of early learning and development. Table 1 offers prompts in these three areas for individuals developing assessments to question assumptions and center equity in their work, and outlines potential features of equity‐centered assessments.</p> <p>1 TABLE Prompts to guide the development and potential features of equity‐centered early learning assessments.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Area of focus</th><th align="left">Prompts for assessment developers</th><th align="left">Potential features of equity‐centered early learning assessments</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">ContentReflects the content domains and subdomains on which the assessment focuses, as well as the items used to measure (sub)domains</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What is driving the decision to design an assessment focused on a particular domain/subdomain? Is the decision informed by users from diverse communities?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Does the content provide all children with the opportunity to share what they know and can do?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Does content reflect and balance the demographic backgrounds and cultural contexts of users?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Does the tool expand beyond constrained skills to capture less frequently measured unconstrained skills?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Assessments capture domains and subdomains of development that reflect the strengths and priorities of diverse communities as determined by families, educators, content experts, and decision‐makers</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessment items and prompts allow all children to draw connections with their experiences and backgrounds</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessment items align with the developmental progression of skills across early childhood</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">MethodReflects the child and assessor experience during the assessment process</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Will young children understand how to complete assessment tasks irrespective of their language ability or cultural background?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do children enjoy taking the assessment?</p></list-item><list-item><p>What role do assessors play in administering the tool? How will the tool minimize assessor's burden?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Does administration of the tool minimize construct‐irrelevant bias so children's scores are accurate representations of their abilities (and not assessor bias, for example)?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Assessments are brief, engaging, and age‐appropriate for 3‐ to 5‐year‐olds to complete</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessments are technology‐enabled and require minimal external support for children to complete</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessment setup is brief and intuitive for educators</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessments are developed for comparable administration for emergent bilingual and monolingual children</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">OutputReflects the data output generated from the assessments</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Are data presented in ways that are useful, relevant, and timely for educators' practice?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Are data presented in ways that do not perpetuate false‐deficit narratives about children from specific communities?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Are data presented in ways that are understandable and useful to families?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Are data presented in ways that are useful for policy‐ and system‐level decisions?</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Assessments produce results to illustrate children's progress over time against criterion‐referenced standards</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessment results are generated promptly after completion (e.g., within 24 h of administration)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessments produce comparative, aggregated results at the classroom, program, and system level that can inform higher‐level decision‐making</p></list-item><list-item><p>Assessment reports are available to families in their home language with intuitive graphics</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Prompts are adapted from Portilla et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]), and features from MDRC and Substantial ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]). Prompts and potential features are not intended to be exhaustive.</p> <hd id="AN0184868898-2">CONTENT: EXPANDING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF MEASURED SKILLS</hd> <p>Although many contexts and cultures emphasize whole‐child perspectives of child development, recognizing the importance of multiple academic and nonacademic domains (McCoy, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref9">34</reflink>]), variation exists as to <emph>which</emph> skills are prioritized within each domain. When measures align with the perspectives and experiences of specific populations, they can obscure the strengths of other groups and perpetuate deficit narratives about these overlooked groups. To illustrate, measures of children's development in academic domains like literacy and math tend to focus on finite, constrained skills (e.g., letter knowledge, shape identification) that can be fully mastered and often reflect access to formal early educational opportunities (McCormick & Mattera, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref10">33</reflink>]). Children who attend classroom‐based public prekindergarten programs tend to have higher scores at the start of kindergarten on measures of constrained skills than do their peers who do not attend such programs (McCormick & Mattera, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). However, gaps between attenders and nonattenders often dissipate quickly over elementary school (Abenavoli, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]), suggesting that differences in scores on these measures reflect disparities in children's access to formal educational experiences (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]). A narrow focus on constrained skills may also exacerbate existing challenges to instructional quality in prekindergarten programs (Hanno, Gonzalez, et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]), which may encourage educators to drill rote, memorizable skills.</p> <p>Deepening the measurement of academic domains by focusing on more complex unconstrained aspects of skills, or those that continue developing gradually across the lifespan (e.g., expressive language and problem‐solving), may offer insight into the knowledge of children from historically marginalized communities. For example, Black children often demonstrate strengths in oral language, particularly in the ability to produce decontextualized language that moves from the here and now to describe distant or abstract events (Gardner‐Neblett et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]). Producing oral decontextualized language is foundational for children's ability to process and comprehend written decontextualized texts (Gardner‐Neblett & Iruka, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). Yet, because many measures of children's language skills focus on receptive components, strengths in narrative language may be overlooked, likely underestimating the true language competencies of many children. An absence of easy‐to‐use, practice‐relevant measures of expressive language may contribute to a lack of focus by some educators on these foundational skills (Gardner‐Neblett, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]). Overcoming the complexities of capturing unconstrained skills is central to fostering stronger pedagogical practices that build on children's strengths and identifying programs that are most effective in promoting these important skills.</p> <p>One way to deepen domain measurement to include more unconstrained skills is to align assessment content to developmental trajectories rather than focus on discrete skills. Two researcher‐created examples that focus on how children think and learn include the Quick Interactive Language Screener (QUILS; Golinkoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]) and the Research‐based Early Math Assessment (REMA; Clements et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]). The QUILS was created from the understanding that children's vocabulary is not a checklist of words known; rather, it is part of an integrated language system with syntax and language‐learning processes (Levine et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]). The QUILS has 12 different types of items, including some that reflect a child's ability to learn new words from context. The REMA, which takes a similarly comprehensive approach to capturing mathematics skills, is grounded in developmental progressions of children's mathematical thinking in numeracy and geometry. Items in these areas are ordered sequentially to reflect progressively more sophisticated thinking. By aligning with developmental theories on how children's skills progress, these measures can yield comprehensive insights into children's abilities in language and math, and offer insights into specific strengths and weaknesses.</p> <p>Beyond a <emph>deep</emph> measurement approach that captures a range of skills within each domain, adopting a <emph>broad</emph> measurement approach to capture skills in a variety of areas is likely to further illuminate the diversity of children's strengths, while also providing more complete information to inform practice, programs, and policies. Measures of early learning have traditionally focused on capturing skills in core academic domains like language, literacy, and math, leaving largely unmeasured competencies in other areas that are also foundational for children's success in school and beyond. For example, creativity reflects children's ability to think, act, and produce in novel ways and is related to cognitive, emotional, and social competencies (Hargreaves, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]). Although early learning programs often emphasize creativity (e.g., it is a component of the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework) and many young children demonstrate strengths in creative communication and play (Mindham, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref22">36</reflink>]), creativity is rarely examined in assessments that are relevant for practitioners. As a result, educators may lack the information they need to capitalize on these strengths and foster creativity. A first step in developing assessments in a broader set of skill areas is collaborating with diverse users of the measures, including children, families, and practitioners, to identify underevaluated areas that reflect communities' priorities. Insights from these individuals and groups can be integrated with those from developmental science to build an understanding of how skills in targeted areas progress (Rosen et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]), as well as how sociocultural norms may affect how skills are defined and developed across contexts (Storme et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184868898-3">METHOD: REDUCING BURDEN AND BIAS</hd> <p>Measuring the depth and breadth of young children's skills across developmental domains should not come at the expense of the experiences of children who are being assessed or the educators who typically conduct assessments. Assessments of young children capture data through three primary methods: direct, performance‐based assessments (often completed one‐on‐one with an adult), observations of children's behaviors, and evaluations of samples of children's work (Ackerman, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). Capturing additional skill areas through any one of these methods requires adults to interact, watch, and evaluate children. For example, the REMA takes more than an hour per child to complete, with the time typically split across two sessions of approximately 30 to 45 min each (Clements et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]). For an early educator, completing direct assessments like the REMA is often infeasible since assessing all students can mean many days of lost instructional time to gather insight into skills in just one domain. Even assessments that do not require pulling children out of classroom activities (e.g., observational and work sampling‐based approaches) can be time‐intensive for educators and affect classroom practices. Teaching Strategies GOLD (TS GOLD) is a widely used observational assessment system that asks educators to observe, note, and then rate children's skills across 38 areas. Educators report that using TS GOLD encourages teacher‐led, highly structured activities that allow them to collect observational notes, and requires time outside working hours to put notes into the system (Cameron, Kenny, et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>For children, taking long direct assessments covering comprehensive skill sets may result in scores that do not reflect their true abilities in the assessed domains. Although assessments with more items per construct typically lead to more empirically reliable estimates of skills (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]), long assessments risk unintentionally capturing children's abilities in nontargeted areas. For example, children's self‐regulation skills, or their ability to control thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, likely underlie their focus on assessment tasks, meaning that scores may reflect children's ability to engage with and complete assessment tasks rather than their skills in the evaluated domains. Construct‐irrelevant variance related to children's self‐regulation may be particularly problematic if certain groups of children confront longer administration times than others. A current best practice is to assess bilingual children in each of the languages they speak to capture distributed knowledge across languages (Hanno & Surrain, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>]). As an illustration, the QUILS: English–Spanish for emergent bilingual children includes 45 items in English and 45 items in Spanish, while the QUILS for monolingual English‐speaking children features 48 items (de Villiers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]). Although test guidance suggests waiting at least 1 day between administering the Spanish and English sections, bilingual children are still likely to spend more time than monolingual children completing these assessments. As such, the scores of bilingual children might be more likely to reflect self‐regulatory challenges than those of monolingual children.</p> <p>Children may also perform differently on direct assessments with adults depending on their comfort during one‐on‐one interactions. Many young children are hesitant to interact with unfamiliar adults (Banerjee & Luckner, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]), making it challenging to capture what they know through direct assessments. Furthermore, the adult–child interactions emphasized in direct assessments, in which adults ask children to demonstrate their knowledge through repeated questioning, may be unfamiliar to children from historically marginalized cultural and linguistic communities who tend to interact with adults at home and in their communities in other ways (Peña & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accurately capturing the abilities of young children also depends heavily on <emph>who</emph> is collecting the assessment data. During one‐on‐one direct assessments, some assessors may be more adept at creating environments that make children from diverse backgrounds feel comfortable responding to prompts. Beyond shaping the assessment experience, assessors may also have undue influence on scoring procedures. High correlations across educator‐assigned observational domain scores on the TS GOLD suggest that many assessors struggle to differentiate between children's skills in distinct domains (Russo et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). Moreover, educators' biases regarding characteristics like race/ethnicity, gender, ability, and language status may result in the underestimation of children's skills. For example, one study examined Black and White early educators' perceptions of children's oral narrative skills, finding differential assessments of lower‐quality narratives based on educators' and children's race (Gardner‐Neblett et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Leveraging digital technologies may help to overcome these limitations by improving children's and educators' assessment experiences and the accuracy of assessments of diverse learners (DiCerbo, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]). Digital resources are increasingly present in early learning environments, with most early educators using tablets or computers in their classrooms (Dore & Dynia, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]). Direct assessments using these technologies can capture children's responses as they move through short, interactive activities, and may increase children's engagement with tasks and decrease administrative burden. They may also reduce the influence of educators on scores: In a study of 4‐year‐olds' self‐regulation skills, teachers' ratings of Black children's self‐regulation skills using the Child Behavior Rating Scale differed substantially from their ratings of White children's self‐regulation skills on the same measure, but no differences were found on a tablet‐based measure of self‐regulation, indicating the potential for technology to help address issues of implicit bias (Cameron, McClelland, et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>These tools may also help minimize the tension between content coverage and assessment burden we mentioned earlier. Multidimensional assessment paradigms that allow children to demonstrate skills in multiple domains while interacting with engaging activities and scenarios can lessen the need for lengthy domain‐specific assessments. Early evidence from the SuperSkills digital application demonstrates the feasibility of reliably assessing aspects of creative thinking and cognitive skills simultaneously (Rosen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref39">41</reflink>]). Computer adaptive testing (CAT) models can also reduce the number of items to complete by presenting children with items tailored to their prior performance on the assessment (Jacobusse & van Buuren, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]). Both solutions—multidimensional and CAT approaches—also may increase the alignment between assessments and children's experiences and abilities, but they are unlikely to do so for all children unless children from varying backgrounds inform their development.</p> <p>Other recent technological advances, like those in automatic speech recognition (ASR) that record and analyze children's voice data, could further enable capturing unconstrained skills with limited educator time and impact on scoring responses (Richards et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>]). Advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) could allow direct assessments to flexibly adapt activities and prompts to children's interests and abilities. Beyond applications to direct assessment, generative AI could provide educators feedback on observational notes (e.g., indicating potentially biased language or opportunities for increased specificity) and help them analyze samples of children's work.</p> <p>As technological solutions become more commonplace in early learning assessment, we need research to ensure that they improve users' experiences and the accuracy of scores and do not perpetuate inequities. Systematic variation in access to and comfort with technology may drive disparities. For example, using game‐based assessments on tablets could introduce construct‐irrelevant variance for children who are less familiar with digital games or tablets (DiCerbo, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]). Technologies may also function differently for certain children. In research primarily with adults, ASR models tended to discriminate against individuals who spoke African American English (Martin & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]). Technologies like ASR reflect the experiences of individuals who were part of the development process, from ideation to larger‐scale testing and validation work. Assessment developers have an obligation to evaluate the performance and developmental appropriateness of their measurement tools for young children with varying linguistic backgrounds, racial/ethnic identities, and abilities.</p> <hd id="AN0184868898-4">OUTPUT: USING ASSESSMENT DATA TO ADVANCE EQUITY</hd> <p>Early learning assessments can influence children's experiences in early education programs by informing educators' practices (Im, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>]) and program‐ and system‐level decisions (Snow & Van Hemel, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]). However, data may be challenging to act on if, as we described, they do not paint a holistic or accurate picture of children's abilities because of the <emph>content</emph> evaluated or the assessment <emph>method</emph>. The <emph>output</emph> from assessments, or how scores are presented, may further influence whether assessments can inform instructional, programmatic, and policy decisions in ways that advance equity. Direct assessments often produce norm‐referenced standardized scores that reflect a child's skill level relative to same‐age peers, with a score of 100 reflecting the average. These standardized scores have traditionally been generated with predominantly White samples, which elevates White children as the norm and in doing so, may overlook the strengths of and contribute to lower expectations for non‐White children (Gardner‐Neblett et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). The relevance of norm‐based scores for diverse populations can be improved by ensuring that historically marginalized communities are oversampled in norm creation (Snow & Van Hemel, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>]). An alternative to norm‐based scoring approaches that rank individual children against others is criterion‐referenced scoring, which reflects what children know and can do against standards. These scores may provide educators with the most meaningful information about children's skills and competencies. Some researchers emphasize the importance of questioning criterion from an equity‐centered lens and ensuring that they reflect the values of the communities in which they are used (Randall et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several practical limitations may prevent educators from using data output to inform their practices with children. First, educators often receive data sporadically (e.g., Work Sampling System checklists and TS GOLD checkpoints typically occur two to three times a year), so scores might not capture children's rapid development in early childhood and may be insufficient to inform regular practices (Downs & Strand, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]). Second, data are rarely presented with clear ties to instructional practice, so while many educators spend considerable time collecting data, they may not use them (Schachter & Piasta, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref50">44</reflink>]). Professional development is often proposed as a way to improve data use (Varier & Yun, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]). However, the onus to use data cannot fall on an already overworked, undersupported workforce or on programs with scarce resources to launch comprehensive professional development efforts (Hanno, Jones, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]). Assessments can be designed in ways that reduce the burden on educators to interpret and translate data into practice. Linking scores to curricular resources and providing concrete examples of relevant high‐quality practices can help improve data's usefulness for educators. As with test criteria, linked curricula must be questioned from an equity‐centered perspective to ensure that recommendations nurture the development of <emph>all—</emph>not just some<emph>—</emph>children.</p> <p>Beyond improving the relevance of data for practitioners, assessment developers should consider how to make output useful for other relevant users. First, output should provide families with information on children's skills in ways that honor the foundational role of families and empower collaborative home‐school connections. At a minimum, score reports should be available in families' home languages and present timely data in intuitive, user‐friendly ways that facilitate strengths‐based conversations between educators and families about children's progress. Second, assessment developers should consider different ways to display data so it can inform higher‐level decision‐making. Whereas practitioners and families are often most interested in individual children's outcomes, decision‐makers rely on classroom‐, program‐, and system‐level reporting to decide how to allocate resources and support (Snow & Van Hemel, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref53">45</reflink>]). As an initial step in developing reports for families and decision‐makers, developers could present data dashboard prototypes in cognitive interviews to ensure that results are interpreted as intended.</p> <hd id="AN0184868898-5">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Assessments of young children are central to understanding and nurturing their unique gifts and ultimately building higher‐quality early learning systems. However, today's dominant assessments have limitations that often prevent them from playing these foundational roles. Amid a renewed national focus on equity and recent advances in technology, assessment developers can create innovative tools that capture a wider range of children's abilities across diverse communities, while also minimizing the burdens associated with collecting and using assessment data. Although no one tool is likely to do it all, measures that center equity in their development, implementation, and interpretation can illuminate children's strengths and become tools for disrupting rather than perpetuating power structures and false deficit narratives.</p> <hd id="AN0184868898-6">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>We are grateful to Brenna Healy for her support with preparing Supporting Information for this manuscript. The preparation of this paper was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and don't necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1.</p> <ref id="AN0184868898-7"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abenavoli, R. M. (2019). The mechanisms and moderators of "fade‐out": Towards understanding why the skills of early childhood program participants converge over time with the skills of other children. Psychological Bulletin, 145 (12), 1103 – 1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ackerman, D. J. (2019). Early childhood care and education workforce issues in implementing assessment policies. In C. P. Brown, M. B. McMullen, & N. File (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 537 – 566). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.aera.net/Publications/Books/Standards‐for‐Educational‐Psychological‐Testing‐2014‐Edition">www.aera.net/Publications/Books/Standards‐for‐Educational‐Psychological‐Testing‐2014‐Edition</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Banerjee, R., & Luckner, J. L. (2013). Assessment practices and training needs of early childhood professionals. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34 (3), 231 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.816808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cameron, C. E., Kenny, S., & Chen, Q. H. (2023). How head start professionals use and perceive teaching strategies gold: Associations with individual characteristics including assessment conceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121 (January), 103931. https://<ulink href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0742051X22003067">www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0742051X22003067</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cameron, C. E., McClelland, M. M., Kwan, T., Starke, K., & Lewis‐Jones, T. (2023). HTKS‐kids: A tablet‐based measure of self‐regulation to equitably assess preschoolers' school readiness. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref5" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cataldo, K. (2021). The need for culturally relevant performance‐based assessments post‐Covid 19. Perspectives on Urban Education, 19 (1), 1 – 5. https://urbanedjournal.gse.upenn.edu/archive/volume‐19‐issue‐1‐fall‐2021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. H., & Liu, X. H. (2008). Development of a measure of early mathematics achievement using the Rasch model: The Research‐Based Early Maths Assessment. Educational Psychology, 28 (4), 457 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701777272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref31" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> de Villiers, J., Iglesias, A., Golinkoff, R., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Sweig Wilson, M. (2021). Assessing dual language learners of Spanish and English: Development of the QUILS:ES. Journal of Speech Therapy, Phoniatrics, and Audiology, 41 (4), 183 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2020.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> deMonsabert, J., Brookes, S., Coffey, M. M., & Thornburg, K. (2021). Data use for continuous instructional improvement in early childhood education settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50 (3), 493 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐021‐01168‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiCerbo, K. (2020). Assessment for learning with diverse learners in a digital world. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39 (3), 90 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dore, R. A., & Dynia, J. M. (2020). Technology and media use in peschool classrooms: Prevalence, purposes, and contexts. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.600305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downs, A., & Strand, P. S. (2006). Using assessment to improve the effectiveness of early childhood education. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15 (6), 671 – 680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐006‐9080‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner‐Neblett, N. (2022). How essential is teaching narrative skills to young children? Profiles of beliefs about narrative instruction among early childhood teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51 (3), 531 – 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐022‐01322‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner‐Neblett, N., De Marco, A., & Ebright, B. D. (2023). Do Katie and Connor tell better stories than Aaliyah and Jamaal? Teachers' perceptions of children's oral narratives as a function of race and narrative quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 62, 115 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner‐Neblett, N., & Iruka, I. U. (2015). Oral narrative skills: Explaining the language‐emergent literacy link by race/ethnicity and SES. Developmental Psychology, 51 (7), 889 – 904. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner‐Neblett, N., Iruka, I. U., & Humphries, M. (2021). Dismantling the Black–White achievement gap paradigm: Why and how we need to focus instead on systemic change. Journal of Education, 203 (2), 433 – 441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211031958</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner‐Neblett, N., Pungello, E. P., & Iruka, I. U. (2012). Oral narrative skills: Implications for the reading development of African American children. Child Development Perspectives, 6 (3), 218 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750‐8606.2011.00225.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golinkoff, R. M., de Villiers, J., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Iglesias, A., Sweig Wilson, M., & Nandakumar, R. (2017). User's manual for the quick interactive language screener™ (QUILS™). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanno, E., & Surrain, S. (2019). The direct and indirect relations between self‐regulation and language development among monolinguals and dual language learners. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22 (1), 75 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567‐019‐00283‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanno, E. C., Gonzalez, K. E., Jones, S. M., & Lesaux, N. K. (2021). Linking features of structural and process quality across the landscape of early education and care. AERA Open, 7, 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211044519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanno, E. C., Jones, S. M., & Lesaux, N. K. (2021). Back to basics: Developmental catalysts of quality improvement in early education and care. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8 (2), 200 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211032258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves, D. J. (2012). What do we mean by creativity and creative thinking? In H. Fumoto, S. Robson, S. Greenfield, & D. Hargreaves (Eds.), Young children's creative thinking (pp. 15 – 26). SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsueh, J. (2021). Challenge and opportunity: Equitable pre‐k measures for early learning. MDRC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED615906.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Im, H. (2017). Kindergarten standardized testing and reading achievement in the U.S.: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55 (December), 9 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobusse, G., & van Buuren, S. (2007). Computerized adaptive testing for measuring development of young children. Statistics in Medicine, 26 (13), 2629 – 2638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S. M., Lesaux, N. K., Gonzalez, K. E., Hanno, E. C., & Guzman, R. (2020). Exploring the role of quality in a population study of early education and care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 53, 551 – 570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, K. (2016). Teaching to the data collection? (Un)intended consequences of online child assessment system, "Teaching Strategies GOLD". Global Studies of Childhood, 6 (1), 98 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610615627925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465 – 491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine, D., Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Michnick Golinkoff, R., de Villiers, J., Iglesias, A., & Sweig Wilson, M. (2020). Evaluating socioeconomic gaps in preschoolers' vocabulary, syntax and language process skills with the Quick Interactive Language Screener (QUILS). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 114 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, J. L., & Wright, K. E. (2022). Bias in automatic speech recognition: The case of African American language. Applied Linguistics, 44 (4), 613 – 630. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mattera, S., & Choi, J. (2019). Selecting an instrument for measuring infant and toddler language and preliteracy. MDRC. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/William%5fPenn%5fScan%5fFinal.pdf">www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/William%5fPenn%5fScan%5fFinal.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, M., & Mattera, S. (2022). Learning more by measuring more: Building better evidence on pre‐k programs by assessing the full range of children's skills. MDRC. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Constrained%5fUnconstrained%5fBrief.pdf">www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Constrained%5fUnconstrained%5fBrief.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy, D. C. (2022). Building a model of cultural universality with specificity for global early childhood development. Child Development Perspectives, 16 (1), 27 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MDRC & Substantial. (2022). User‐informed principles: Developing assessments for all early learners. MDRC. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/User‐Informed%20Principles%5fTarget%20Product%20Profile%5fFINAL%20012423.pdf">www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/User‐Informed%20Principles%5fTarget%20Product%20Profile%5fFINAL%20012423.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mindham, C. (2005). Creativity and the young child. Early Years, 25 (1), 81 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140500043245</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peña, E. D., & Halle, T. G. (2011). Assessing preschool dual language learners: Traveling a multiforked road. Child Development Perspectives, 5 (1), 28 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750‐8606.2010.00143.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Portilla, X. A., Hanno, E. C., Cababa, S., Hagerty, J., Di Dio, A., & Hsueh, J. (2023). Centering equity in early learning assessments: A guide to developing assessments for all early learners. MDRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J., Slomp, D., Poe, M., & Oliveri, M. E. (2022). Disrupting White supremacy in assessment: Toward a justice‐oriented, antiracist validity framework. Educational Assessment, 27 (2), 170 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards, J. A., Xu, D., Gilkerson, J., Yapanel, U., Gray, S., & Paul, T. (2017). Automated assessment of child vocalization development using LENA. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60 (7), 2047 – 2063. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_jslhr‐l‐16‐0157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen, Y., Jaeger, G., Newstadt, M., Bakken, S., Rushkin, I., Dawood, M., & Purifoy, C. (2023). A multidimensional approach for enhancing and measuring creative thinking and cognitive skills. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40 (4), 334 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt‐12‐2022‐0227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen, Y., Stoeffler, K., & Simmering, V. (2020). Imagine: Design for creative thinking, learning, and assessment in schools. Journal of Intelligence, 8 (2), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8020016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russo, J. M., Williford, A. P., Markowitz, A. J., Vitiello, V. E., & Bassok, D. (2019). Examining the validity of a widely‐used school readiness assessment: Implications for teachers and early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 14 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schachter, R. E., & Piasta, S. B. (2021). Doing assessment: A multicase study of preschool teachers' language and literacy data practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 515 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., & Van Hemel, S. B. (Eds.). (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Committee on Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children, National Research Council. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12446/early‐childhood‐assessment‐why‐what‐and‐how</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storme, M., Lubart, T., Myszkowski, N., Cheung, P. C., Tong, T., & Lau, S. (2017). A cross‐cultural study of task specificity in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51 (3), 263 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varier, D., & Yun, S. (2023). A review of research on assessment use: Implications for preparing early childhood educators for data‐informed decision‐making. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 44 (4), 1067 – 1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2023.2257157</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Emily C. Hanno; Ximena A. Portilla and JoAnn Hsueh</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1469516
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Designing Equity-Centered Early Learning Assessments for Today's Young Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+C%2E+Hanno%22">Emily C. Hanno</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9136-4293">0000-0002-9136-4293</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ximena+A%2E+Portilla%22">Ximena A. Portilla</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7705-0693">0000-0002-7705-0693</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22JoAnn+Hsueh%22">JoAnn Hsueh</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development+Perspectives%22"><i>Child Development Perspectives</i></searchLink>. 2025 19(2):92-98.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement+Techniques%22">Measurement Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Content%22">Test Content</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skills%22">Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Assisted+Testing%22">Computer Assisted Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Artificial+Intelligence%22">Artificial Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Use%22">Data Use</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdep.12528
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1750-8592<br />1750-8606
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this article, we adopt culturally relevant perspectives on developmental science that acknowledge and value the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of young children and their families to identify opportunities to advance the measurement of early childhood development. We focus on direct child assessments that can drive more equitable early learning experiences and outcomes by informing the work of educators and program- and system-level decision-makers. Specifically, we describe potential advancements in the "content" (what is measured), "method" (how assessments are conducted), and "output" (how data are presented) of early learning assessments. Throughout, we highlight opportunities to elevate the experiences of those who use assessment--children, families, educators, and administrators--to develop equity-centered, engaging assessments that provide comprehensive, fair, and useful insights.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1469516
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1469516
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdep.12528
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 92
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Content
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Assisted Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Artificial Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Use
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Designing Equity-Centered Early Learning Assessments for Today's Young Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily C. Hanno
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ximena A. Portilla
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: JoAnn Hsueh
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1750-8592
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1750-8606
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development Perspectives
              Type: main
ResultId 1