Laura A. Outhwaite, Pirjo Aunio, Jaimie Ka Yu Leung, Jo Van Herwegen
{"title":"衡量幼儿数学技能:早期数学评估和筛查工具心理计量特性的系统性回顾","authors":"Laura A. Outhwaite, Pirjo Aunio, Jaimie Ka Yu Leung, Jo Van Herwegen","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners\",\"authors\":\"Laura A. Outhwaite, Pirjo Aunio, Jaimie Ka Yu Leung, Jo Van Herwegen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners
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.
期刊介绍:
Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.