Validation of motor, cognitive, language, and socio-emotional subscales using the Caregiver Reported Early Development Instruments: An application of multidimensional item factor analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Caregiver Reported Early Development Instruments (CREDI) are assessments tools for measuring the development of children under age three in global contexts. The present study describes the construction and psychometric properties of the motor, cognitive, language, and socio-emotional subscales from the CREDI’s long form. Multidimensional item factor analysis was employed, allowing indicators of child development to simultaneously load onto multiple factors representing distinct developmental domains. A total of 14,113 caregiver reports representing 17 low-, middle-, and high-income countries were analyzed. Criterion-related validity of the constructed subscales was tested in a subset of participants using data from previously established instruments, anthropometric data, and a measure of child stimulation. We also report internal-consistency reliability and test–retest reliability statistics. Results from our analysis suggest that the CREDI subscales display adequate reliability for population-level measurement, as well as evidence of validity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".