Protocol for validation of the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) for children under 3 years of age in seven countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's early development is affected by caregiving experiences, with lifelong health and well-being implications. Governments and civil societies need population-based measures to monitor children's early development and ensure that children receive the care needed to thrive. To this end, the WHO developed the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) to measure children's early development up to 3 years of age. The GSED includes three measures for population and programmatic level measurement: (1) short form (SF) (caregiver report), (2) long form (LF) (direct administration) and (3) psychosocial form (PF) (caregiver report). The primary aim of this protocol is to validate the GSED SF and LF. Secondary aims are to create preliminary reference scores for the GSED SF and LF, validate an adaptive testing algorithm and assess the feasibility and preliminary validity of the GSED PF.We will conduct the validation in seven countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Pakistan, The Netherlands, People's Republic of China, United Republic of Tanzania), varying in geography, language, culture and income through a 1-year prospective design, combining cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with 1248 children per site, stratified by age and sex. The GSED generates an innovative common metric (Developmental Score: D-score) using the Rasch model and a Development for Age Z-score (DAZ). We will evaluate six psychometric properties of the GSED SF and LF: concurrent validity, predictive validity at 6 months, convergent and discriminant validity, and test-retest and inter-rater reliability. We will evaluate measurement invariance by comparing differential item functioning and differential test functioning across sites.This study has received ethical approval from the WHO (protocol GSED validation 004583 20.04.2020) and approval in each site. Study results will be disseminated through webinars and publications from WHO, international organisations, academic journals and conference proceedings.Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ on 19 November 2021 (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KX5T7; identifier: osf-registrations-kx5t7-v1).
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 | 0.085 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.017 |
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".