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

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

成功的早期数学发展对儿童日后的教育、就业和福利成果至关重要。然而,已有的测量工具却很少被用于 (i) 评估儿童的数学技能和 (ii) 识别有数学学习困难或有数学学习困难风险的儿童。为此,本预注册系统性综述旨在概述那些用于测量 0-8 岁儿童数学技能的测量工具的心理测量特性。然后,对已确定的测量工具所报告的可靠性和有效性证据进行综合,包括与常见可接受性阈值相关的证据。总共确定了 41 种数学评估工具和 25 种筛查工具。我们的研究揭示了五个主要发现。首先,大多数测量工具都被归类为儿童导向测量工具,由经过培训的评估员以纸质形式单独进行。其次,大多数已确定的测量工具都没有经过与教育测量最相关的可靠性和有效性方面的评估,只有 15 种测量工具在两个以上的心理测量证据方面达到了共同的可接受性阈值。第三,只有四种筛查工具在区分发育正常儿童和有或可能有数学学习困难的儿童方 面的能力是可以接受的。第四,只有一项数学评估和一项筛选器达到了预测有效性的共同可接受临界值。最后,只有 11 项数学评估和一项筛查工具与其他经过验证的测量工具一致。在现有证据的基础上,提高测量质量对提高数学学习与发展研究的方法标准至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
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.
期刊最新文献
On Being Accepted: Interrogating How University Cultural Scripts Shape Personal and Political Facets of Belonging Linking Disparate Strands: A Critical Review of the Relationship Between Creativity and Education Exploring the Nature-Creativity Connection Across Different Settings: A Scoping Review Bold, Humble, Collaborative, and Virtuous: The Future of Theory Development in Educational Psychology Effects of School-led Greenspace Interventions on Mental, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1