MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152007110 · doi:10.4236/psych.2014.519213

Screening Measures Used in Child Daycare Centers: A 15-Years Systematic Review

2014· article· en· W2152007110 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Filgueiras, Pedro Pires, J. Landeira-Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoAustralian Government
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyCognitionEmpirical evidenceDeveloping countryClinical psychologyPsychiatryEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childcare programs can be expensive for developing countries. To measure the efficiency of these interventions in early childhood cognitive outcomes, screening measures are proposed in this article. A systematic review was conducted to answer two questions: which are the empirical evidence available in the literature to support using psychological screening measures in child daycare centers; and if those measures can be adopted as cost-effective assessment policies for children’s cognition. A total of 109 articles were retrieved. After the exclusion criteria, 18 articles remained. Ten screening measures were detected in the literature. Among those ten, three instruments were used both in child daycare centers and as assessment policies. Psychometric properties and adequacy of these measures to childcare programs are considered. Using Brazil as an example, the present article also discusses the challenges of adopting evidence-based practices in childcare policies in developing countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychologySame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207