Early child development in England: Cross-sectional analysis of ASQ®-3 records from the 2-2½-year universal health visiting review using national administrative data (Community Service Dataset, CSDS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThe Ages & Stages Questionnaire 3rd Edition (ASQ®-3) is a tool to measure developmental delay for children aged between 1 - 66 months originally developed in the United States. This measure has been collected in England since 2015 as a part of mandated 2-2½-year health visiting reviews and collated nationally in the Community Services Dataset (CSDS). CSDS is known to be incomplete and to-date there have not been any published analyses of ASQ®-3 held within CSDS. ObjectivesThis study aimed to a) identify a subset of complete child development data for children aged two in England using ASQ®-3 data in CSDS between 2018/19-2020/21; b) use this subset of data to analyse child development age 2-2½-years in England. MethodsThis study compared counts of ASQ®-3 records in CSDS by local authority and financial quarter against national, publicly available Health Visitor Service Delivery Metrics (HVSDM) to identify local authorities with complete ASQ®-3 records in CSDS. This study described child development in this subset of the data using both a binary cut-off of whether a child reached expected level of development and the continuous ASQ®-3 score. ResultsAmong the 226,505 children from 64 local authorities in the sample with complete ASQ®-3 data, 86.2% met expected level of development. Children from the most deprived neighbourhoods (82.6%), children recorded as Black (78.9%), and boys (81.7%) were less likely to meet expected level of development. ConclusionsTo fully understand early child development across England, the completeness of ASQ®-3 data in the CSDS requires improvement. Second, in order to interpret the national CSDS data on child development, ASQ®-3 should be standardised and validated in an English context with attention paid to implementation and subsequent referral and support pathways. Our study provides a minimum estimate of children needing developmental support (13.8%), with many more children likely to be experiencing moderate or mild delay but not identified by the ASQ®-3 cut-offs for expected development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".