Analyzing the Psychometric Properties of Infant (0–24 Months) Developmental Assessments: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To assess the psychometric properties of available developmental assessments for infants, aged 0–24 months.Methods A scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews as a guideline. The following four databases: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were used to retrieve articles. Assessments were analyzed for psychometric properties of reliability and validity. Results: Fifteen developmental assessments were identified and evaluated based on their psychometric properties from 20 number of articles.Results Three assessments including Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development 3rd Edition (BSID-III), Caregiver Reported Early Development Instruments (CREDI), and Ages and Stages Questionnaire 3rd Edition (ASQ-3), were identified to have the most supporting evidence.Conclusion This study provided clinicians with an updated list of all-encompassing infant developmental assessments. Certain assessments require additional evidence regarding their psychometric properties to substantiate their clinical utility.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".