Early developmental screening tools constructed in Latin American countries: umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple early childhood development (ECD) screening instruments have been developed in Latin America. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe ECD screening tests for children under 4 years of age constructed in Latin American countries in the context of healthcare, currently in use. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published until April 2024 was conducted to identify screening tests constructed in Latin America. The search for each test was expanded, and individual records were completed. Authors of the instruments and/or their validations were identified and contacted to corroborate the information. An ECD screening test was defined as one that assesses at least three different domains. Only tests used in the healthcare system were included in the study. Those without publications and/or accessible information were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Twenty-one tests constructed in nine countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay) were included, many used in different countries of the region. Seven were constructed and/or validated in the past 5 years. They predominantly consist of direct assessment or questions to primary caregivers. Four were validated for online use, and one for virtual use. In the validation, most combined different psychometric analyses, with heterogeneity in methodology and reference patterns. Median summary sensitivity was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-1.0), and specificity was 0.71 (95% CI 0.42-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The ECD screening tests developed in Latin America show thorough validation and ongoing updates, though they exhibit some variability. Direct assessment using paper predominates. The consistency of the instruments, when used in different countries and populations, stands out.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".