Authentic Assessment of Executive Functions in Early Childhood: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions (EFs) are cognitive skills that begin developing in early life and are crucial for children’s overall development and daily task performance. Generally, EFs are assessed through standardized neuropsychological tests, which may not always accurately capture real-world application. To overcome this limitation, alternative methods such as authentic assessment have emerged. A scoping review was conducted to map the information available regarding the authentic assessment of EFs in children under 6 years of age from 2010 to 2021. Out of 790 documents, 32 met the eligibility criteria after full-text revision. Two rating scales emerged as the most used EFs assessment instruments. The documents did not explicitly mention the term “authentic assessment.” Four commonly assessed EFs were identified. Findings highlight the need to develop multidimensional authentic assessment instruments to assess early EFs skills in all children. This includes children at risk or with developmental disabilities, and children from families with incomes below the poverty threshold.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it