IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0006442.html

Predictive and concurrent validity of caregiver reported early childhood development assessments: A prospective cohort study of Tanzanian children

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Seiden
  • Dana Charles McCoy
  • Alfa Muhini
  • Christopher R Sudfeld
  • Mohamed Bakari
  • Arvin Saleh
  • Karim P Manji
  • Nandita Perumal

Abstract

Many directly assessed and caregiver-reported measures of early childhood development (ECD) are used to monitor outcomes and evaluate interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many assessments of ECD for children 0–3 years old have robust psychometric properties, but relatively little is known about their ability to predict later developmental and learning outcomes. To address questions about predictive and concurrent validity, we used longitudinal data on three widely used measures of ECD from 487 children in Tanzania. This study examined the predictive validity of the Caregiver-Reported Early Development Instrument (CREDI) at 12 months of age with the directly assessed International Early Learning and Development Assessment (IDELA) and the caregiver-reported Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI 2030) administered at 3.5-6 years of age. We also examined the concurrent validity of the IDELA and ECDI2030 administered on the same day. Consistent with prior literature examining the predictive validity of ECD assessments in very young children, we find statistically significant but practically small (~.1 to.2) correlations between age-adjusted CREDI scores measured in infancy and both IDELA and ECDI2030 scores measured at preschool age. Contrary to expectations, CREDI scores were more predictive for children who took IDELA when older and for children whose mothers did not complete primary education. IDELA overall and domain scores had statistically significant medium-sized (~.4 to.5) correlations with ECDI2030 scores that were slightly larger than relations found in prior research. Our results demonstrate limited predictive power from a caregiver-reported assessment administered in infancy, highlighting how variable ECD is for young children. At preschool age, a directly assessed measure of ECD had better reliability than a shorter caregiver-reported measure, but scores on both measures correlated strongly, suggesting that caregiver-reported measures are capturing similar constructs to directly assessed measures of ECD when implemented at the same point in time.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Seiden & Dana Charles McCoy & Alfa Muhini & Christopher R Sudfeld & Mohamed Bakari & Arvin Saleh & Karim P Manji & Nandita Perumal, 2026. "Predictive and concurrent validity of caregiver reported early childhood development assessments: A prospective cohort study of Tanzanian children," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006442
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006442
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006442&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0006442?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.