Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners.
Saved in:
| Title: | Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Outhwaite, Laura A. (AUTHOR), Aunio, Pirjo (AUTHOR), Leung, Jaimie Ka Yu (AUTHOR), Van Herwegen, Jo (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Educational Psychology Review. Dec2024, Vol. 36 Issue 4, p1-71. 71p. |
| Abstract: | Successful early mathematical development is vital to children’s later education, employment, and wellbeing outcomes. However, established measurement tools are infrequently used to (i) assess children’s mathematical skills and (ii) identify children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties. In response, this pre-registered systematic review aimed to provide an overview of measurement tools that have been evaluated for their psychometric properties for measuring the mathematical skills of children aged 0–8 years. The reliability and validity evidence reported for the identified measurement tools were then synthesised, including in relation to common acceptability thresholds. Overall, 41 mathematical assessments and 25 screeners were identified. Our study revealed five main findings. Firstly, most measurement tools were categorised as child-direct measures delivered individually with a trained assessor in a paper-based format. Secondly, the majority of the identified measurement tools have not been evaluated for aspects of reliability and validity most relevant to education measures, and only 15 measurement tools met the common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence. Thirdly, only four screeners demonstrated an acceptable ability to distinguish between typically developing children and those with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties. Fourthly, only one mathematical assessment and one screener met the common acceptability threshold for predictive validity. Finally, only 11 mathematical assessments and one screener were found to concurrently align with other validated measurement tools. Building on this current evidence and improving measurement quality is vital for raising methodological standards in mathematical learning and development research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Educational Psychology Review is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Successful early mathematical development is vital to children’s later education, employment, and wellbeing outcomes. However, established measurement tools are infrequently used to (i) assess children’s mathematical skills and (ii) identify children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties. In response, this pre-registered systematic review aimed to provide an overview of measurement tools that have been evaluated for their psychometric properties for measuring the mathematical skills of children aged 0–8 years. The reliability and validity evidence reported for the identified measurement tools were then synthesised, including in relation to common acceptability thresholds. Overall, 41 mathematical assessments and 25 screeners were identified. Our study revealed five main findings. Firstly, most measurement tools were categorised as child-direct measures delivered individually with a trained assessor in a paper-based format. Secondly, the majority of the identified measurement tools have not been evaluated for aspects of reliability and validity most relevant to education measures, and only 15 measurement tools met the common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence. Thirdly, only four screeners demonstrated an acceptable ability to distinguish between typically developing children and those with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties. Fourthly, only one mathematical assessment and one screener met the common acceptability threshold for predictive validity. Finally, only 11 mathematical assessments and one screener were found to concurrently align with other validated measurement tools. Building on this current evidence and improving measurement quality is vital for raising methodological standards in mathematical learning and development research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1040726X |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6 |
