research topic on childhood education

• Open access
• Published: 20 February 2015

Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation

• Wendy K. Jarvie 1  

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy volume  6 ,  pages 35–43 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

67k Accesses

2 Citations

Metrics details

Governments around the world have boosted their early childhood education and care (ECEC) engagement and investment on the basis of evidence from neurological studies and quantitative social science research. The role of qualitative research is less understood and under-valued. At the same time the hard evidence is only of limited use in helping public servants and governments design policies that work on the ground. The paper argues that some of the key challenges in ECEC today require a focus on implementation. For this a range of qualitative research is required, including knowledge of organisational and parent behaviour, and strategies for generating support for change. This is particularly true of policies and programs aimed at ethnic minority children. It concludes that there is a need for a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting ECEC implementation, along the lines of “implementation science” developed in the health area.

Introduction

Research conducted over the last 15 years has been fundamental to generating support for ECEC policy reform and has led to increased government investments and intervention in ECEC around the world. While neurological evidence has been a powerful influence on ECEC policy practitioners, quantitative research has also been persuasive, particularly randomised trials and longitudinal studies providing evidence (1) on the impact of early childhood development experiences to school success, and to adult income and productivity, and (2) that properly constructed government intervention, particularly for the most disadvantaged children, can make a significant difference to those adult outcomes. At the same time the increased focus on evidence-informed policy has meant experimental/quantitative design studies have become the “gold standard” for producing knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ), and pressures for improved reporting and accountability have meant systematic research effort by government has tended to focus more on data collection and monitoring, than on qualitative research (Bink, 2007 ). In this environment the role of qualitative research has been less valued by senior government officials.

Qualitative Research-WhatIs It?

The term qualitative research means different things to different people (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ). For some researchers it is a way of addressing social justice issues and thus is part of radical politics to give power to the marginalised. Others see it simply as another research method that complements quantitative methodologies, without any overt political function. Whatever the definition of qualitative research, or its role, a qualitative study usually:

Features an in depth analysis of an issue, event, entity, or process. This includes literature reviews and meta studies that draw together findings from a number of studies.

Is an attempt to explain a highly complex and/or dynamic issue or process that is unsuited to experimental or quantitative analysis.

Includes a record of the views and behaviours of the players — it studies the world from the perspective of the participating individual.

Cuts across disciplines, fields and subject matter.

Uses a range of methods in one study, such as participant observation; in depth interviewing of participants, key stakeholders, and focus groups; literature review; and document analysis.

High quality qualitative research requires high levels of skill and judgement. Sometimes it requires pulling together information from a mosaic of data sources and can include quantitative data (the latter is sometimes called mixed mode studies). From a public official perspective, the weaknesses of qualitative research can include (a) the cost-it can be very expensive to undertake case studies if there are a large number of participants and issues, (b) the complexity — the reports can be highly detailed, contextually specific examples of implementation experience that while useful for service delivery and front line officials are of limited use for national policy development, (c) difficultyin generalising from poor quality and liable to researcher bias, and (d) focus, at times, more on political agendas of child rights than the most cost-effective policies to support the economic and social development of a nation. It has proved hard for qualitative research to deliver conclusions that are as powerful as those from quantitative research. Educational research too, has suffered from the view that education academics have over-used qualitative research and expert judgement, with little rigorous or quantitative verification (Cook & Gorard, 2007 ).

Qualitative Research and Early Childhood Education and Care

In fact, the strengths of qualitative ECEC research are many, and their importance for government, considerable. Qualitative research has been done in all aspects of ECEC operations and policies, from coordinating mechanisms at a national level (OECD, 2006 ), curriculum frameworks (Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, 2008 ), and determining the critical elements of preschool quality (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ), to developing services at a community level including effective outreach practices and governance arrangements. Qualitative research underpins best practice guides and regulations (Bink, 2007 ). Cross country comparative studies on policies and programs rely heavily on qualitative research methods.

For public officials qualitative components of program evaluations are essential to understanding how a program has worked, and to what extent variation in outcomes and impacts from those expected, or between communities, are the result of local or national implementation issues or policy flaws. In addition, the public/participant engagement in qualitative components of evaluations can reinforce public trust in public officials and in government more broadly.

In many ways the contrast between quantitative and qualitative research is a false dichotomy and an unproductive comparison. Qualitative research complements quantitative research, for example, through provision of background material and identification of research questions. Much quantitative research relies on qualitative research to define terms, and to identify what needs to be measured. For example, the Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) studies, which have been very influential and is a mine of information for policy makers, rely on initial qualitative work on what is quality in a kindergarten, and how can it be assessed systematically (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ). Qualitative research too can elucidate the “how” of a quantitative result. For example, quantitative research indicates that staff qualifications are strongly associated with better child outcomes, but it is qualitative work that shows that it is not the qualification per se that has an impact on child outcomes-rather it is the ability of staff to create a high quality pedagogic environment (OECD, 2012 ).

Challenges of Early Childhood Education and Care

Systematic qualitative research focused on the design and implementation of government programs is essential for governments today.

Consider some of the big challenges facing governments in early childhood development (note this is not a complete list):

Creating coordinated national agendas for early childhood development that bring together education, health, family and community policies and programs, at national, provincial and local levels (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Building parent and community engagement in ECEC/Early Childhood Development (ECD), including increasing parental awareness of the importance of early childhood services. In highly disadvantaged or dysfunctional communities this also includes increasing their skills and abilities to provide a healthy, stimulating and supportive environment for young children, through for example parenting programs (Naudeau, Kataoka, Valerio, Neuman & Elder, 2011 ; The Lancet, 2011 ; OECD, 2012 ).

Strategies and action focused on ethnic minority children, such as outreach, ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants and informal as well as formal programs.

Enhancing workforce quality, including reducing turnover, and improved practice (OECD, 2012 ).

Building momentum and advocacy to persuade governments to invest in the more “invisible” components of quality such as workforce professional development and community liaison infrastructure; and to maintain investment over significant periods of time (Jarvie, 2011 ).

Driving a radical change in the way health/education/familyservicepro fessions and their agencies understand each other and to work together. Effectively integrated services focused on parents, children and communities can only be achieved when professions and agencies step outside their silos (Lancet, 2011 ). This would include redesign of initial training and professional development, and fostering collaborations in research, policy design and implementation.

There are also the ongoing needs for,

Identifying and developing effective parenting programs that work in tandem with formal ECEC provision.

Experiments to determine if there are lower cost ways of delivering quality and outcomes for disadvantaged children, including the merits of adding targeted services for these children on the base of universal services.

Figuring out how to scale up from successful trials (Grunewald & Rolnick, 2007 ; Engle et al., 2011 ).

Working out how to make more effective transitions between preschool and primary school.

Making research literature more accessible to public officials (OECD, 2012 ).

Indeed it can be argued that some of the most critical policy and program imperatives are in areas where quantitative research is of little help. In particular, qualitative research on effective strategies for ethnic minority children, their parents and their communities, is urgently needed. In most countries it is the ethnic minority children who are educationally and economically the most disadvantaged, and different strategies are required to engage their parents and communities. This is an area where governments struggle for effectiveness, and public officials have poor skills and capacities. This issue is common across many developed and developing countries, including countries with indigenous children such as Australia, China, Vietnam, Chile, Canada and European countries with migrant minorities (OECD, 2006 ; COAG, 2008 ; World Bank, 2011 ). Research that is systematic and persuasive to governments is needed on for example, the relative effectiveness of having bilingual environments and ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants in ECEC centres, compared to the simpler community outreach strategies, and how to build parent and community leadership.

Many countries are acknowledging that parental and community engagement is a critical element of effective child development outcomes (OECD, 2012 ). Yet public officials, many siloed in education and child care ministries delivering formal ECEC services, are remote from research on raising parent awareness and parenting programs. They do not see raising parental skills and awareness as core to their policy and program responsibilities. Improving parenting skills is particularly important for very young children (say 0–3) where the impact on brain development is so critical. It has been argued there needs to be a more systematic approach to parenting coach/support programs, to develop a menu of options that we know will work, to explore how informal programs can work with formal programs, and how health programs aimed young mothers or pregnant women can be enriched with education messages (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Other areas where qualitative research could assist are shown in Table 1 (see p. 40).

Implementation Science in Early Childhood Education and Care

Much of the suggested qualitative research in Table 1 is around program design and implementation . It is well-known that policies often fail because program design has not foreseen implementation issues or implementation has inadequate risk management. Early childhood programs are a classic example of the “paradox of non-evidence-based implementation of evidence-based practice” (Drake, Gorman & Torrey, 2005). Governments recognise that implementation is a serious issue: there may be a lot of general knowledge about “what works”, but there is minimal systematic information about how things actually work . One difficulty is that there is a lack of a common language and conceptual framework to describe ECEC implementation. For example, the word “consult” can describe a number of different processes, from public officials holding a one hour meeting with available parents in alocation,to ongoing structures set up which ensureall communityelementsare involved and reflect thespectrum of community views, and tocontinue tobuild up community awareness and engagement over time.

There is a need to derive robust findingsof generic value to public officials, for program design. In the health sciences, there is a developing literature on implementation, including a National implementation Research Network based in the USA, and a Journal of Implementation Science (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman & Wallace, 2005 ). While much of the health science literature is focused on professional practice, some of the concepts they have developed are useful for other fields, such as the concept of “fidelity” of implementation which describes the extent to which a program or service has been implemented as designed. Education program implementation is sometimes included in these fora, however, there is no equivalent significant movement in early childhood education and care.

A priority in qualitative research for ECEC of value to public officials would then appear to be a systematic focus on implementation studies, which would include developing a conceptual framework and possibly a language for systematic description of implementation, as well as, meta-studies. This need not start from scratch-much of the implementation science literature in health is relevant, especially the components around how to influence practitioners to incorporate latest evidence-based research into their practice, and the notions of fidelity of implementation. It could provide an opportunity to engage providers and ECE professionals in research, where historically ECEC research has been weak.

Essential to this would be collaborative relationships between government agencies, providers and research institutions, so that there is a flow of information and findings between all parties.

Quantitative social science research, together with studies of brain development, has successfully made the case for greater investment in the early years.There has been less emphasis on investigating what works on the ground especially for the most disadvantaged groups, and bringing findings together to inform government action. Yet many of the ECEC challenges facing governments are in implementation, and in ensuring that interventions are high quality. This is particularly true of interventions to assist ethnic minority children, who in many countries are the most marginalised and disadvantaged. Without studies that can improve the quality of ECEC implementation, governments, and other bodies implementing ECEC strategies, are at risk of not delivering the expected returns on early childhood investment. This could, over time, undermine the case for sustained government support.

It is time for a rebalancing of government research activity towards qualitative research, complemented by scaled up collaborations with ECEC providers and research institutions. A significant element of this research activity could usefully be in developing a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting implementation, and linking implementation to outcomes. This has been done quite effectively in the health sciences. An investment in developing an ECEC ‘implementation science’ would thus appear to be a worthy of focus for future work.

Bink, S. (2007). A Large-scale Policy Research Programme: A Canadian Experience. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp. 109–116). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

COAG (Council of Australian Governments). (2008). A National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development . Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2008-10-2/docs/indigenous_early_childhood_NPA.pdf

Cook, T. & Gorard, S. (2007). What Counts and What should Count as Evidence. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp 33–49). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar  

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., & Torrey, W. C. (2002). Implementing adult “tool kits” in mental health . Paper presented at the NASMHPD conference, Tampa, FL.

Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C. H., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O’Gara, C., Yousafzai, A., Cabral de Mello, M., Hidrobo, M., Ulkuer, N., Ertem, I. & Iltus, S. (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet , 378 (9799), 1339–1353.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (FMHI Publication #23) . Retrieved from University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network website: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf

Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2007). A Productive Investment: Early Childhood Development, In M. Young & L. Richardson (Eds.), Early Child Development From Measurement to Action: A Priority for Growth and Equity (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Jarvie, W.K. (2011). Governments and Integrated Early Childhood Development Policies and Services . Paper presentedat the 2011 International Conference on Early Childhood Development, Beijing.

Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M. J. & Elder, L. K. (2011). Investing in Young Children: An Early Childhood Development Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2012). Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2008). A Research Paper to inform the development of an early years learning framework for Australia . Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/EarlyChildhoodWorkforce/Documents/AResearchPapertoinformthedevelopmentofAnEarlyYears.pdf

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., & Elliot, K. (2003). The Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) Project: Intensive Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation Stage (Technical Paper 10). London: DfEE/Institute of Education, University of London.

The Lancet. (2011). The Debate: Why hasn’t the world embraced early childhood development? [Video Post] Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/series/child-development-in-developing-countries-2

The World Bank. (2011). Early Child Development in China: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty and Improving Future Competiveness (Report No. 53746-CN). Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9383/709830PUB0EPI0067926B09780821395646.pdf?sequence=1

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, University of New South Wales at Canberra, Northcott Dr., Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia

Wendy K. Jarvie ( visiting professor )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy K. Jarvie .

Additional information

This paper was originally prepared for the OECD Early Childhood Education and Care Network Meeting, 24 January 2012, Oslo, Norway.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jarvie, W.K. Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation. ICEP 6 , 35–43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Download citation

Published : 20 February 2015

Issue Date : November 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• early childhood education and care
• implementation
• qualitative research
• implementation science
• ethnic minority children

Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 17 September 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  110 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Laura A. Outhwaite   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4454-7775 1 ,
• Pirjo Aunio   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0901-3874 2 ,
• Jaimie Ka Yu Leung   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7533-5046 3 &
• Jo Van Herwegen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5316-1818 1 , 3  

Successful early mathematical development is vital to children’s later education, employment, and wellbeing outcomes. However, established measurement tools are infrequently used to (i) assess children’s mathematical skills and (ii) identify children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties. In response, this pre-registered systematic review aimed to provide an overview of measurement tools that have been evaluated for their psychometric properties for measuring the mathematical skills of children aged 0–8 years. The reliability and validity evidence reported for the identified measurement tools were then synthesised, including in relation to common acceptability thresholds. Overall, 41 mathematical assessments and 25 screeners were identified. Our study revealed five main findings. Firstly, most measurement tools were categorised as child-direct measures delivered individually with a trained assessor in a paper-based format. Secondly, the majority of the identified measurement tools have not been evaluated for aspects of reliability and validity most relevant to education measures, and only 15 measurement tools met the common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence. Thirdly, only four screeners demonstrated an acceptable ability to distinguish between typically developing children and those with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties. Fourthly, only one mathematical assessment and one screener met the common acceptability threshold for predictive validity. Finally, only 11 mathematical assessments and one screener were found to concurrently align with other validated measurement tools. Building on this current evidence and improving measurement quality is vital for raising methodological standards in mathematical learning and development research.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Successful early mathematical development is vital to children’s later education, employment, and wellbeing outcomes (Bailey et al., 2020 ; Crawford & Cribb, 2013 ; Davis-Kean et al., 2022 ; Reyna et al., 2009 ). However, 55% of school-aged children worldwide do not have the level of mathematical skills needed for education and everyday life (UNESCO, 2017 ). Gaps between low and high attaining children also emerge early in childhood and persist throughout education (Aubrey et al., 2006 ). Many children also struggle to learn mathematics with estimates suggesting that between 5 and 14% of children aged 6 years and older have mathematical learning difficulties (MLD) (Morsanyi et al., 2018 ; Muñez et al., 2023 ).

To address some of these issues, research on mathematical learning and development has grown substantially in recent years. This includes knowledge advances on how typically and atypically developing children acquire mathematical skills (e.g. Gilmore, 2023 ; Nelson & Powell, 2018 ; Van Herwegen & Simms, 2020 ), and how cognitive development and the home and school learning environments impact these processes (e.g. Hornburg et al., 2021 ; Nogues & Dorneles, 2021 ; Turan & De Smedt, 2022 ), as well as how children’s mathematical development can be supported through effective interventions (e.g. Ramani et al., 2012 ; Sella et al., 2021 ; Van Herwegen et al., 2018 ). However, recent synthesises highlight the infrequent use of established measurement tools to (i) assess children’s mathematical skills (Outhwaite et al., 2022 ; Simms et al., 2019 ), and the inconsistent criteria used to (ii) identify children with or at-risk of MLD (Lewis & Fisher, 2016 ).

In response, the current review aimed to provide an overview of measurement tools that have been evaluated for their psychometric properties for measuring the mathematical skills of children aged 0–8 years. Specifically, the current review focused on the reliability and validity evidence most relevant to education measurements for assessing mathematical skills and identifying children with or at-risk of MLD.

Defining Mathematical Assessments and Screeners

For the purposes of the current study, measurement tools have been conceptualised as an umbrella term, which includes mathematical assessments and screeners. Mathematical assessments, in general, are designed to measure mathematical development over time and/or in response to intervention (e.g. pre- to post-test). When mathematical assessments include a standardised, norm-referenced sample, they can also be used to identify children with or at-risk of MLD based on percentile rank scores.

In contrast, screeners are measurement tools that are typically used as an efficient means to identify children with or at-risk of MLD, including those who may need additional educational support. In some cases, screeners can also be used to monitor children’s mathematical progress, particularly when they are aligned with the curriculum and are administered at more than one time point (see Nelson et al., 2023 for review on curriculum-based measures). However, as many screeners often include a small number of items and incorporate a relatively concentrated set of maths skills/concepts, caution should be taken when using screeners for this wider purpose. As such, the current review focuses on screeners for the purpose identifying children with or at-risk of MLD.

Defining Mathematical Development

It is widely acknowledged that mathematical development is a complex, multicomponent process with many skills that children need to learn from early childhood onwards (Gilmore, 2023 ). Early childhood is defined here as 0–8 years (UNESCO, 2023 ). Several models attempt to summarise the structure of early maths (Devlin et al., 2022 ), and thus propose the skills that should be included in mathematical assessments for this age group. For example, various models highlight the importance of number skills, such as children’s knowledge of the rules and processes of numbers (e.g. the counting sequence and cardinality) and how they relate to each other (e.g. ordinality and symbolic comparison) (e.g. Aunio & Räsänen, 2016 ; Clements & Sarama, 2009 ; Purpura & Lonigan, 2015 ).

In addition, these models of mathematical development (Aunio & Räsänen, 2016 ; Clements & Sarama, 2009 ; Purpura & Lonigan, 2015 ), also include arithmetic skills, such as addition and subtraction presented in both single and multi-digit operations, as well as word problems. Alongside these number and arithmetic skills, other models of mathematical development propose a broader conceptualisation of early maths, which includes patterning (e.g. recreating repeated patterns of objects), measurement (e.g. comparing objects based on size or weight), and geometry skills (e.g. shape recognition) (e.g. Braeuning et al., 2020 ; Milburn et al., 2019 ). Some of these models (e.g. Clements & Sarama, 2009 ) describe a broad range of mathematical skills developing in early childhood, and others (e.g. Aunio & Räsänen, 2016 ) focus on mathematical skills considered essential for later mathematical development and predicting MLD.

Previous reviews have summarised some measurement tools for children’s mathematical skills, but up to age 6 years with standardisations to the UK population only (Dockrell et al., 2017 ). Other reviews have taken a more global perspective but have focused on curriculum-based measures (Nelson et al., 2023 ) and teacher-implemented assessments for older children, aged 9–12 years (Hakkarainen et al., 2023 ). As such, it is currently unclear which mathematical assessments have been developed and validated to produce reliable indications of children’s skills in early childhood.

Defining Mathematical Learning Difficulties

MLD is an umbrella term used to describe persistent problems with learning and applying mathematical facts and procedures (SASC, 2019 ). It includes children who fit the diagnosis for dyscalculia, mathematical disorder, or mathematical disabilities. As definitions and diagnosis criteria differ significantly between countries and researchers (Szűcs & Goswami, 2013 ), the term MLD will be used in the current study to refer to children who persistently struggle with mathematics.

Children with MLD often experience persistent difficulties with reading and writing numerals, understanding how numbers relate to each other or what numbers mean, as well as remembering number facts, calculation, or mathematical reasoning (Butterworth, 2005 ; Vanbinst et al., 2014 ). Some propose that MLD is caused by a single core deficit to magnitude processing or approximate number sense (ANS) (Butterworth, 2005 ; Mazzocco et al., 2011 ), which is commonly measured using non-symbolic (i.e. dots) magnitude comparison tasks (Nosworthy et al., 2013 ). In contrast, others have argued that symbolic magnitude processing is a critical correlate of children’s mathematical learning and that difficulties with these skills are a better predictor for MLD than other skills, such as phonological processing or working memory (De Smedt, 2022 ). However, it is also possible that different children with MLD struggle for different reasons and that sub-groups might be present (Bartelet et al., 2014 ; Costa et al., 2018 ).

Due to the different definitions for MLD and the varying views of its causes concerning non-symbolic and symbolic magnitude processing, measurement tools that aim to identify children with or at-risk of MLD differ widely in terms of the mathematical abilities covered. For example, while some screeners are short and only assess non-symbolic (i.e. dots) and symbolic (i.e. digits) magnitude processing (e.g. Nosworthy et al., 2013 ), other screeners include a wider range of mathematical abilities (e.g. Butterworth, 2003 ). However, it is currently unclear which measurement tools have been developed and validated to produce reliable identifications of children with or at-risk of MLD.

Indicators of Reliability and Validity for Measurement Tools

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurements (AERA et al., 2014 ) and Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines (Mokkink et al., 2016 ; Prinsen et al., 2018 ) provide frameworks for appraising the psychometric properties (i.e. reliability and validity evidence) of measurement tools in education and health research. The current review focuses on the reliability and validity evidence most relevant to education measurements for assessing mathematical skills and identifying children with or at-risk of MLD. Common acceptability thresholds for these reliability and validity indicators in the context of educational research are summarised in Table  1 .

Content Validity

Reporting measurement development and content validity is highly important for understanding what the measured construct is and its theoretical background, as well as what the measure is designed for, what is the target population, and the context of use. It is essential to consider if the measurement is relevant and comprehensible for users and how well it covers the phenomena assessed (i.e. comprehensiveness). In reporting articles, this evidence can be seen, for instance, in the theoretical framework explaining the theoretical background of the construct and the focus population. The evidence related to relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness are commonly gathered by using panels of experts and users, in addition to conducting pilot studies.

Structural Validity and Internal Consistency

When there is empirical data collected with the measurement tool, it is possible to report evidence of structural validity and internal consistency. Evaluations of structural validity focus on examining whether the assessment tool works as assumed, based on theory as a unidimensional or multidimensional measure. This is typically evaluated using factor analysis methods.

Evidence of internal consistency is also related to the structure of the measurement tool and refers to the degree to which included items are interrelated. It is commonly measured using Cronbach alpha for continuous data and Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) coefficient for dichotomously scored data. It can also be measured using split-half reliability, which refers to the extent to which all parts of the assessment tool contribute equally to the overall measurement indicator. Ideally, internal consistencies should be reported for each of the measurement dimensions identified in the structural validity evaluation.

Reliability

The evidence of reliability includes indicators of test–retest and/or inter-rater reliability. The assumption related to test–retest reliability is that the scores of children should remain consistent across multiple measurements, often within a minimum two-week timeframe. Inter-rater reliability evidence is relevant for observational tools and refers to the consistency in scores across at least two observers.

Criterion Validity

Criterion validity produces evidence related to the relationship between the measurement tool under development and theoretically aligned measurement tools and/or external criteria. For example, when making comparisons between the measurement tool under development and other theoretically aligned measurement tools, criterion validity can be measured as concurrent (i.e. a similar measurement tool administered during the same testing period), divergent (i.e. a measurement tool measuring a different skill domain in the same testing period), and predictive validity (e.g. a similar measurement tool administered at a delayed time point). It is recommended that ‘Gold Standard’ measurement tools are used as the reference for criterion validity evaluations. This is because ‘Gold Standard’ measurement tools typically have undergone extensive development, including the establishment of various types of reliability and validity evidence, and are widely accepted as the best measurement tools currently available. When ‘Gold Standard’ measurement tools are used as a reference to the criterion validity of a new measurement tool, it is expected that both tools measure the same concept(s). However, in the field of mathematical learning and development, these ‘Gold Standards’ are infrequently available in many countries and cultures (Hakkarainen et al., 2023 ).

In the case of accurately identifying children with or at-risk of MLD, evidence of criterion validity, in the form of predictive validity and/or diagnostic accuracy, is especially relevant. Predictive validity evidence of a measurement tool includes the assumption that the same children will be identified as having learning difficulties over time. To be able to produce predictive evidence, longitudinal data are needed, preferably at least six months between the measurements to give enough time for learning and development.

In terms of diagnostic accuracy, measurement tools need to be sensitive (e.g. identify true cases of children with or at-risk of MLD) and specific (e.g. identify true cases of children who do not have MLD) enough in the identification of target groups. To reduce the risk of missing children who are genuinely at risk of learning difficulties (i.e. false negatives), indicators of sensitivity are commonly prioritised, at a cost of reduced specificity in measurement tools for screening purposes (Jenkins et al., 2007 ; Klingbeil et al., 2019 ).

Cultural and Language Considerations

Overall, it is also recommended that the psychometric properties of the measurement tool are invariant across different groups of children, such as those from different countries and language groups. This ensures that children from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds are not inherently disadvantaged when using the measurement tool. It also affords the development of broader theoretical understandings of children’s mathematical learning and development (Pitchford & Outhwaite, 2016 ), which have traditionally been focused on Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic (abbreviated as WEIRD) societies (Beller & Jordan, 2018 ) in the Minority World (e.g. North America and Western Europe) (Draper et al., 2022 ).

Current Review

To support research in mathematical learning and development, this systematic review aimed to provide an overview of measurement tools that have been evaluated for their psychometric properties for measuring the mathematical skills of children aged 0–8 years. Specifically, the current review focused on the reliability and validity evidence most relevant to education measurements for assessing mathematical skills and identifying children with or at-risk of MLD. The reliability and validity evidence reported for the identified measurement tools were then synthesised, including in relation to common acceptability thresholds. Based on this evidence, measurement tools with the most promising psychometric properties were then identified. Such synthesises are important for supporting researchers, educators, and other stakeholders to select measurement tools that are most suitable for assessing children’s mathematical skills over time, including in response to interventions, and for identifying children with or at-risk of MLD (Hakkarainen et al., 2023 ).

The protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (blinded for review) with ethical approval granted by (blinded for review). The PRISMA protocol was used to secure the quality of reporting in the current review (Page et al., 2021 ).

Search Strategy

The systematic literature search was conducted across seven scholarly databases and two grey literature sources (see Figs. 1 and 2 ) with the following search string: “Primary school” OR “elementary school” OR kindergart* OR preschool* OR “early years” OR child* OR toddler OR “child development” AND “assessment measure” OR screen* OR “parent report” OR “teacher report” OR “caregiver report” OR observation OR test* OR checklist AND math* OR “number sense” OR numeracy OR symbolic OR “non symbolic” OR counting OR arithmetic* OR geomet* OR shape AND Psychometric* OR “Psychometric Properties” OR reliability OR validity OR sensitivity OR “internal consistency”. A backward citation of included studies ( n  = 57) was also conducted, including the test manuals of the measurement tools most frequently used when establishing criterion validity. This search strategy was completed in March 2021 (from January 1990–present) and was updated in June 2023 (from January 2021–present). An additional forward citation search of included studies ( n  = 71) was conducted in May 2024 to ensure the latest and most comprehensive data were used in the current review.

PRISMA flow diagram of studies through the systematic review (original search, March 2021)

PRISMA flow diagram of studies through the systematic review (updated search, June 2023 and May 2024)

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be included in the current review, studies needed to meet the following pre-registered inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Studies needed to focus on mathematical measurement tools for children aged 0–8 years. If studies reported a measurement tool that was suitable for children extending beyond the specified age range (e.g. 5–11 years), this tool was eligible for inclusion. No restriction was placed on whether the measurement tool was designed for typically developing children or for identifying those with or at-risk of MLD. The first author categorised the purpose of each measurement tool (i.e. assessment or screener) based on how it was presented in the included psychometric studies. Twenty percent of measurement tools were also second-coded by the last author with 100% agreement.

Measurement Tool

Included studies needed to report the psychometric properties of a named measurement tool, which measures any area of mathematics, including number, arithmetic, and shape, space, and measure. Measurement tools that assessed children’s mathematics anxiety, language, or vocabulary, as well as teachers/caregivers’ perceptions of the importance of mathematics, were not eligible for inclusion. International large-scale tests (e.g. PISA) or national government statutory assessments were also beyond the scope of the current review and were not eligible for inclusion. No restriction was placed on whether the measurement tool was a direct measure of a child’s mathematical skills or teacher/caregiver report of children’s maths skills.

Psychometric Properties

Studies also needed to describe the psychometric properties (e.g. reliability and validity evidence), of the named measurement tool (see Table  1 ). If some details were missing, these were labelled as ‘not reported’ in the study synthesis.

Other Criteria

No restriction was placed on the geographical location or the language of the measurement tool. However, the full-text records needed to be accessible to download and available in English. Studies also needed to be published since January 1990 and report original data; commentary or position papers were not eligible for inclusion.

Record Screening

As outlined in the PRISMA Flow Diagram (Page et al., 2021 ; see Fig.  1 ), the initial searches in March 2021 identified 61 eligible studies. One reviewer (first author) was responsible for screening all records at both levels. A random 20% sample of records was screened by an additional reviewer (see acknowledgements) to ensure high levels of agreement (κ = 0.84). An updated search strategy was completed in June 2023 (see Fig.  2 ) and identified an additional 10 eligible studies ( n  = 71). Consistent with the initial search, one reviewer (third author) was responsible for screening all records at both levels. A random 20% sample of records was also screened by an additional reviewer (first author) to ensure high levels of agreement (κ = 0.93). The forward citation search completed in May 2024 identified a further 18 studies. In total, 89 studies were included in the current review.

Coding Framework

To establish an overview of each of the measurement tools identified in the 89 eligible studies, information was extracted based on the age range covered, country(s) and language(s) in which the tools were developed, and the measurement type (e.g. child-direct) and format (e.g. paper-based), as well as the measurement mode (e.g. individual) and administrator (e.g. researcher/ training assessor). Information relating to the number of items and the mathematical concepts assessed were also extracted, based directly on the terminology used in the eligible studies. Although there were inconsistencies in the terminologies used for different mathematical concepts (e.g. ANS, non-symbolic magnitude, dot comparison), the assessment tasks were broadly categorised as number (N), arithmetic (A), and shape, space, and measure (SSM). These ‘areas of maths’ categories were based on widely recognised models of mathematical development (e.g. Aunio & Räsänen, 2016 ; Clements & Sarama, 2009 ; Milburn et al., 2019 ; Purpura & Lonigan, 2015 ).

Data related to the psychometric properties (i.e. reliability and validity evidence) were also extracted for each of the measurement tools in the study synthesis. These data were then rated based on the common acceptability thresholds in education research (see Table  1 ). If the relevant psychometric property evidence fully met the outlined thresholds, the measurement tool was rated as ‘Acceptable’. If a range of results were reported, which were both above and below the thresholds, it was rated as ‘Mixed’. If the evidence did not meet these thresholds, it was rated as ‘Low’. In cases where acceptability thresholds were not widely available within the literature, conventional thresholds for Pearson’s correlations were used (< 0.30 = low; 0.3–0.5 = medium; > 0.5 = high/acceptable) or were rated as ‘not applicable’ (NA), if other forms of analysis were used.

Overview of Measurement Tools

In total, 66 measurement tools were identified across 89 included studies. This included 41 mathematical assessments designed for children aged 1–14 years and 25 screeners suitable for children aged 3–14 years. As summarised in Table  2 , most measurement tools were child-direct measures ( n  = 57) administered individually ( n  = 58) with a trained assessor ( n  = 54) in a paper-based format ( n  = 47). Most measurement tools targeted number ( n  = 60) and/or arithmetic skills ( n  = 51), with less than half of the identified assessments and screeners measuring shape, space, and measure skills ( n  = 26).

Although the identified measurement tools were evaluated in over 55 countries and 31 languages, over half of the assessments and screeners were developed in WEIRD societies in minority countries and/or in English ( n  = 36). Only ten assessments and three screeners were evaluated in different countries, cultures, and/or language groups (see Table  2 ). For most of these measurement tools, the different language groups were considered within the same study. However, as the evaluations of the English and Spanish versions of the Birthday Party assessment (Lee, 2016 ), the English and Turkish Versions of the NSS (Jordan et al., 2010 , 2012 ), and the English and Greek versions of the PENS-B screener (Purpura et al., 2015 ) were conducted separately, the synthesis of psychometric properties henceforth refers to 42 assessments and 27 screeners.

Content validity in the form of expert opinion on the suitability and adaptation of test items was only reported for eight mathematical assessments (AAT, Ralston et al., 2018 ; EMAT, Ceylan & Aslan, 2023 ; IDELA, Save the Children, 2019 ; Numeracy-Caregiver report questionnaire, Pushparatnam et al., 2021 ; Numeracy-Child direct assessment, Pushparatnam et al., 2021 ; REMA, Clements et al., 2008 ; Dong et al., 2023 ; TENA, Bojorque et al., 2015 ; ENT Test, Aunio et al., 2006 ) and four screeners (BNPT, Olkun et al., 2016 ; Dyscalculia Test, Eteng-Uket, 2023 ; EM-CBM, Clarke et al., 2023 ; NSS, Jordan et al., 2012 ). All were rated as acceptable.

Structural Validity

Twenty-five mathematical assessments included a measure of structural validity, of which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was the most frequent approach ( n  = 12). However, only 11 assessments met the common acceptability thresholds and were deemed to have good model fit (see Table  3 ). Twelve screeners also included a measure of structural validity, of which CFA was also the most common method ( n  = 5) and five screeners met the acceptable threshold criteria (see Table  3 ).

Internal Consistency

Over half of the mathematical assessments reported internal consistency ( n  = 27) and most reached the acceptable threshold ( n  = 20) (see Table  3 ). However, of the 20 mathematical assessments with acceptable internal consistency, only two assessments reported disaggregated internal consistency results for the multiple dimensions identified in the structural validity evaluation (Birthday Party- Long Version- English, Lee, 2016 ; TRS-EN, Vessonen et al., 2023 ).

Over half of the identified screeners also reported internal consistency ( n  = 15) with 13 meeting the acceptable thresholds. Within those that demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, only three screeners reported internal consistency for the different factors identified in the structural validity evaluation (EN- Test, Hellstrand et al., 2020 ; Early Numeracy Screener, Lopez-Pedersen et al., 2021 ; Dyscalculia Test, Eteng-Uket, 2023 ).

Fifteen mathematical assessments included indicators of test–retest reliability (controlled for age) with intervals ranging from 3–7 days to 2–6 months, and nine were rated as acceptable. Eight assessments reported inter-rater reliability, of which seven met the acceptable threshold (see Table  4 ). Twelve of the identified screeners also included indicators of test–retest reliability (controlled for age) with time intervals ranging from 26.5 days to 17 months. However, only four screeners were rated as having acceptable reliability using these methods (see Table  4 ).

Concurrent validity was evaluated with 24 mathematical assessments, with comparisons most frequently made with the Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests ( n  = 7). However, only 11 mathematical assessments met acceptability thresholds (see Table  4 ). Divergent validity with standardised language, reading, and non-verbal reasoning measurement tools was considered in seven mathematical assessments, but only two were rated as acceptable. Predictive validity was also considered in seven mathematical assessments, typically over 1–2 years. However, only one was rated as acceptable on the common threshold criteria (TRS-EN, Vessonen et al., 2023 ).

Concurrent validity was also evaluated with 11 screeners, with comparisons commonly made with Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests ( n  = 3) and TEMA-3 ( n  = 3). However, only one screener met the acceptability thresholds (see Table  4 ). Divergent validity with standardised reading measurement tools was considered in three screeners, but only one was rated as acceptable. Predictive validity was considered in nine screeners, over periods ranging from 10 weeks to 3 years. However, only one screener had acceptable predictive validity (NSS; Jordan et al., 2012 ). All other screeners were rated as either mixed ( n  = 1) or low ( n  = 7) on the acceptability thresholds (see Table  4 ). Diagnostic accuracy was also considered in ten screeners. However, there were large variations in the reported sensitivity and specificity, with only four screeners meeting the acceptability thresholds (see Table  4 ).

Overall, the Woodcock-Johnson III Math subtests and TEMA-3 were the measurement tools most widely used to assess criterion validity. As such, an overview of these measures is reported in Table  2 with the psychometric properties included in Tables 3 and 4 .

Measurement Tools with Promising Evidence

Table 5 summarises the nine mathematical assessments and six screeners with the most promising psychometric evidence identified within the current review.

This study reports the first pre-registered systematic review of the psychometric properties of mathematical assessments and screeners in early childhood. This review aimed to provide an overview of measurement tools that have been evaluated for their psychometric properties for measuring mathematical skills in children aged 0–8 years. Specifically, the current review focused on the psychometric (i.e. reliability and validity) evidence most relevant to education measurements for assessing mathematical skills and identifying children with or at-risk of MLD (AERA et al., 2014 ; Mokkink et al., 2016 ; Prinsen et al., 2018 ). Eighty-nine individual studies relating to 66 measurement tools were identified, of which 41 were mathematical assessments and 25 were screeners. The psychometric properties of these measurement tools were then synthesised and appraised in line with common acceptability thresholds for the five indicators of reliability and validity (content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, and criterion validity).

The current review revealed five main findings. Firstly, most measurement tools were categorised as child-direct measures delivered individually with a trained assessor in a paper-based format. Secondly, the majority of the identified measurement tools have not been evaluated for aspects of reliability and validity most relevant to education measures. Only 15 measurement tools met the common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence. Thirdly, only four screeners demonstrated an acceptable ability to distinguish between typically developing children and those with or at-risk of MLD. Fourthly, only one mathematical assessment and one screener met the common acceptability threshold for predictive validity. Finally, only 11 mathematical assessments and one screener were found to concurrently align with other validated measurement tools. Directions for future research based on these five main findings will be discussed. Overall, this study is relevant to researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders interested in the effective use of measurement tools to assess young children’s mathematical skills over time, in response to interventions, and/or to reliably identify children with or at-risk of MLD.

Firstly, the current review showed that most measurement tools were categorised as child-direct measures delivered individually with a trained assessor in a paper-based format. Most measurement tools targeted number and/or arithmetic skills, with fewer tools measuring shape, space, and measure skills. Although the identified measurement tools were evaluated in 55 countries and 31 languages, most assessments and screeners were developed in WEIRD societies in minority countries and/or in English. Only ten assessments and three screeners were evaluated in more than one country (see Table  2 ). This poses an ongoing challenge for the field of mathematical learning and development as the underrepresentation of multilingual majority countries (i.e. non-WEIRD societies) in test development leads to publication bias and a lack of scientific evidence related to children’s learning in various countries (Draper et al., 2022 ).

Psychometric Evaluations of the Identified Measurement Tools

Secondly, the majority of the identified measurement tools have not been evaluated for aspects of reliability and validity most relevant to education measures, and few tools met the common acceptability thresholds for these indicators. For example, only nine assessments (DIFER, Csapó et al., 2014 ; Early Years Toolbox, Howard et al., 2022 ; ELOM, Snelling et al., 2019 ; EMAT, Ceylan & Aslan, 2023 ; ENT, Van Luit et al., 1994 ; Van de Rijt et al., 2003 ; IDELA, Save the Children, 2019 ; Parent Ratings of Numeracy Skills, Lin et al., 2021 ; REMA-SF, Weiland et al., 2012 ; TRS-EN, Vessonen et al., 2023 ) and six screeners (ASPENS, Clarke et al., 2011 ; Dyscalculia Test, Eteng-Uket, 2023 ; HoN, Chatzaki et al., 2024 ; MESS-E, Erford et al., 1998 ; NSS [English version], Jordan et al., 2010 ; PENS-B, Purpura et al., 2015 ) were identified to meet the common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence (see Table  5 ). These findings suggest that these 15 measurement tools currently have the most promising psychometric evidence to assess young children’s mathematical skills and/or to reliably identify children with or at-risk of MLD.

Although it would be preferable for more measurement tools to meet these criteria, the current findings, combined with the practical information summarised in Table  2 , offer a useful starting point for other researchers to decide which early maths measurement tool to use in their work. For example, the broad skill focus included in the Early Years Toolbox-Early Numeracy (Howard et al., 2022 ) may be suitable for consideration in a maths intervention study with English-speaking children aged 3–4 years (e.g. Scerif et al., 2023 ). Whereas the ease with which children’s early maths skills can be indicated by parent reports in the parent ratings of numeracy skills assessment (Lin et al., 2021 ) may be better suited for large-scale, survey studies (e.g. Cosso et al., 2024 adapted this measure for use with Latine families in the USA).

Identifying Children with or At-Risk of MLD

Thirdly, in terms of diagnostic validity for identifying children with or at-risk of MLD, only the ASPENS (Clarke et al., 2011 ), HoN (Chatzaki et al., 2024 ), and MESS-E (Erford et al., 1998 ) screeners were found to have acceptable sensitivity and specificity. In addition, the SYMP Test (Brankaer et al., 2017 ) also demonstrated an acceptable ability to distinguish between typically developing children and those with MLD. Although the Numeracy Screener (Nosworthy et al., 2013 ) demonstrated specificity greater than 0.70, the sensitivity results were below the common acceptability threshold of 0.90. Establishing strong sensitivity in measurement tools is important for accurately identifying true cases of children with or at-risk of MLD and reducing the risk of missing those most in need (Jenkins et al., 2007 ; Klingbeil et al., 2019 ).

Fourthly, predictive validity can also be used to evaluate the suitability of measurement tools for detecting children with or at-risk of MLD over time. This study found that only seven mathematical assessments and nine screeners included evaluations of predictive validity, and only two measures met the common acceptability threshold (NSS; Jordan et al., 2012 ; TRS-EN, Vessonen et al., 2023 ). However, these results may, in part, be due to issues relating to consistencies with the external measurement tool or criteria. For example, the Early Numeracy Screener showed low predictive validity with the Norwegian national test scores measured 6 months later (Lopez-Pedersen et al., 2021 ). In explaining these results, the authors highlighted inconsistencies in the types of items across the two measurement tools; while the Early Numeracy Screener includes untimed items and emphasises accuracy, the national test has timed items and focuses on fluency.

Criterion Validity with Other Validated Measures

Finally, this study found that only 11 of the mathematical assessments and one of the screeners concurrently aligned with other validated measures of early mathematical skills (see Table  4 ). While establishing the criterion validity of assessments and screeners with other validated measures is considered an important component of the measurement development process (AERA et al., 2014 ; Mokkink et al., 2016 ; Prinsen et al., 2018 ), it remains an ongoing challenge within the field of mathematical learning and development. For example, the credibility of the criterion validity evaluation relies on the relevance, reliability, and validity of the other measures used as the basis for the concurrent comparison. In particular, the two measurement tools must be conceptually aligned (AERA et al., 2014 ). In the current review, the identified measurement tools that did show acceptable levels of concurrent validity were compared to a broad range of measures (see Table  4 ), of which the Test of Early Mathematics Abilities-3rd Version (TEMA-3; Ginsburg & Baroody, 2003 ) and the Woodcock-Johnson III Math subtests (Schrank et al., 2001 ; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989 ; Woodcock et al., 2001 ) were the most widely used.

Most of the identified measures that demonstrated acceptable (concurrent) criterion validity when compared to the TEMA-3 or Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests, broadly speaking, measured similar areas of mathematical development. For example, the PENS-B (Purpura et al., 2015 ) and the TEMA-3 focused on number and arithmetic skills (Ginsburg & Baroody, 2003 ), while the REMA-SF (Weiland et al., 2012 ), CPM (Assel et al., 2020 ), and the Woodcock-Johnson III Applied Problems Math subtest also included shape, space, and measure items (Schrank et al., 2001 ; Woodcock et al., 2001 ). Similarly, most identified measurement tools that did not demonstrate acceptable (concurrent) criterion validity did not conceptually align with the TEMA-3 ( n  = 4) or Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests ( n  = 6) (see Tables 2 and 4 ). Issues relating to the limited conceptual alignment between measurement tools may be further exacerbated by the lack of consensus relating to the complex structure of early maths (Devlin et al., 2022 ; Gilmore, 2023 ) and the inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe the mathematical skills children need to acquire in early childhood.

Furthermore, although the Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests are also available in Spanish (Muñoz-Sandoval et al., 2009 ) and the TEMA-3 is translated into Mandarin, Spanish, and Dutch (e.g. Paik et al., 2011 ; Huang et al., 2022 ) with psychometric evaluations conducted in China, Singapore, and Spain (Ginsburg & Baroody, 2007 ; Kang et al., 2014 ; Yao et al., 2017 ), these tools are not widely available in a range of different languages and cultures. They also require a trained assessor for administration, as well as substantial costs to purchase the necessary materials, which may limit their usability.

To address some of these challenges, other measurement tools, such as the Early Grade Mathematics Assessment (EGMA; RTI International, 2014 ), have recently been adapted for self-administration (i.e. does not require a trained assessor). The SA-EGMA is a child-direct assessment administered on solar-powered, touch-screen tablet devices and requires minimal adult supervision (Pitchford & Outhwaite, 2016 ). It has been piloted in Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia (all English-speaking) with forthcoming adaptations for Malawi and French-speaking countries (Ryan, 2023 ). However, the psychometric properties of the SA-EGMA are yet to be reported.

Directions for Future Research

Based on these five main findings, there are four recommendations for future research to improve the psychometric evidence and availability of measurement tools for mathematics in early childhood. Firstly, future research should focus on developing and reporting the reliability and validity evidence of a broad range of existing measurement tools. This research should aim to establish a set of ‘Gold Standard’ measurements in the field of mathematical learning and development. These measurement tools should span across different ages, mathematical skill areas, and different measurement types (i.e. child-direct and parent/teacher-report), which can be used for different study design purposes (e.g. large-scale longitudinal designs and intervention studies). Overall, this will contribute to improving the methodological rigour of this field.

Secondly, the development of these measurement tools should aim to be inclusive of different languages, countries, and cultures. The current study highlights successful examples where measurement tools have been adapted and/or translated for use in different educational contexts (e.g. Pushparatnam et al., 2021 ; Save the Children, 2019 ; Van Luit et al., 1994 ; Van de Rijt et al., 2003 ). For example, these studies highlight the value of collaborations with country-specific teams to ensure the measurement tool is contextually relevant, adaptable (e.g. translation-back translation procedures), feasible with assessors, and appropriate for use with children across different countries and/or cultural contexts (Pisani et al., 2018 ). Future research in this area should also work towards open-access measurement tools that practitioners can use (Hakkarainen et al., 2023 ) and other researchers in low-resource contexts (Pitchford & Outhwaite, 2016 ). This will help facilitate greater representation of multilingual, majority countries (i.e. non-WEIRD societies) in mathematical learning and development research (Draper et al., 2022 ).

Thirdly, while enhancing existing measures should be prioritised, future research should also seek to develop new measurement tools that utilise innovative technologies. For example, the current study highlights that technology-based, self-administered measurement tools can increase access and participation of marginalised and hard-to-reach groups in research (Ryan, 2023 ). Future research should advance these recent developments and evaluate whether digital measurement tools are reliable and valid in early childhood, particularly with very young children. These new approaches to measurement tools will require interdisciplinary collaborations, including psychologists, education professionals, and software engineers. It will also require co-production with end-users, such as researchers, teachers, and parents (Duraiappah et al., 2022 ).

Finally, to support the development of existing and new measurement tools, future research should also work towards a commonly accepted definition of the structure of early mathematics (Devlin et al., 2022 ; Gilmore, 2023 ). This will elucidate which skills should be included in these measurement tools. Furthermore, an understanding of the maths skills included within measurement tools, using common terminology, can support theoretical insights into the processes and mechanisms involved in early mathematical development.

Limitations of the Current Review

Although this study conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify measurement tools for early mathematical skills, not every available measure was included in the current synthesis. This was because the search strategy was designed to identify studies that had evaluated the psychometric properties of measurement tools, rather than identifying measurement tools based on their use in intervention, longitudinal, or other studies. Future synthesises should incorporate this broader search strategy, as well as qualitative methods with the mathematical learning and development research and practitioner communities to establish which measurement tools are most widely used in the field, and why. This will provide a more in-depth understanding of the best practices and challenges when measuring mathematical skills in early childhood.

Similarly, the current review was affected by publication bias as the search strategy only incorporated full-text studies that were available in English. Although the current review identified measurement tools that are available in 31 languages, some measures, such as the Tempo Test Rekenen (TTR; De Vos, 1992 ), were excluded from the current review. This was because the studies and/or test manuals, which reported the psychometric properties of these measures, were only available in other languages, such as in French in the case of the TTR (Lafay et al., 2020 ). To address this bias, future studies should seek to systematically review measurement tools that are specifically available in languages other than English. This will contribute to efforts to increase diverse representation in child development research. The current review also does not include a quality assessment of the included studies (e.g. sample size and characteristics, analytical methods justified and appropriate). This should also be incorporated into future research, alongside the quality assessments of other identified measurement tools (e.g. using the COSMIN taxonomy).

This pre-registered systematic review is the first study to provide an overview of mathematical measurement tools for children aged 0–8 years and a synthesis of the reported reliability and validity evidence, including in relation to common acceptability thresholds. Although a relatively large number of assessments ( n  = 41) and screeners ( n  = 25) were identified in the current review, significant gaps remain in the appraisal of these measurement tools. Building on this evidence and improving measurement quality is vital to raising methodological standards in mathematical learning and development research.

Data Availability

Data is available by reasonable request to the first author.

*89 studies identified through systematic review

AERA, APA, & NCME.(2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Psychological Association.

*Aktulun, O. U. (2019). Validity and reliability study of Turkish version of number sense screener for children aged 72-83 months. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7 (2), 64-75.

*Anderson, K. J., Henning, T. J., Moonsamy. J. R., Scott, M., du Plooy, C., & Dawes, A. R. L. (2021). Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the South African Early Learning Outcomes Measure (ELOM). South African Journal of Childhood Education, 11 (1), 1-9.

*Assel, M. A., Montroy, J. J., Williams, J. M., Foster, M., Landry, S. H., Zucker, T., Crawford, A., Hyatt, H., & Bhavsar, V. (2020). Initial validation of a math progress monitoring measure for prekindergarten students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38 (8), 1014-1032.

Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., & Dahl, S. (2006). Early mathematics development and later achievement: Further evidence. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18 , 27–46.

Article   Google Scholar  

*Aunio, P., Hautamäki, J., Heiskari, P. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2006). The early numeracy test in Finnish: Children’s norms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 369-378.

Aunio, P., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Core numerical skills for learning mathematics in children aged five to eight years–A working model for educators. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24 (5), 684–704.

Bailey, D. H., Oh, Y., Farkas, G., Morgan, P., & Hillemeier, M. (2020). Reciprocal effects of reading and mathematics? Beyond the cross-lagged panel model. Developmental Psychology, 56 (5), 912.

Bartelet, D., Ansari, D., Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2014). Cognitive subtypes of mathematics learning difficulties in primary education. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35 (3), 657–670.

Baudonck, M., Debusschere, A., Dewulf, B., Samyn, F., Vercaemst, V., & Desoete, A. (2006). Kortrijkse Rekentest-Revisie [Revised Kortrijk Arithmetic Test].  Kortrijk, Belgium: Revalidatiecentrum Overleie .

Beller, S., & Jordan, F. (2018). The cultural challenge in mathematical cognition. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4 (2), 448–463.

*Beltrán-Navarro, B., Abreu-Mendoza, R. A., Matute, E., & Rosselli, M. (2018). Development of early numerical abilities of Spanish-speaking Mexican preschoolers: A new assessment tool. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 7 (2), 117-128.

*Bezuidenhout, H. S. (2018). Diagnostic test for number concept development during early childhood. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 8 (1), 1-10.

*Bojorque, G., Torbeyns, J., Moscoso, J., Van Nijlen, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2015). Early number and arithmetic performance of Ecuadorian 4-5-year-olds. Educational Studies, 41 (5), 565-586.

Braeuning, D., Ribner, A., Moeller, K., & Blair, C. (2020). The multifactorial nature of early numeracy and its stability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 518981.

*Brafford, T., Clarke, B., Gersten, R. M., Smolkowski, K., Sutherland, M., Dimino, J., & Fainstein, D. (2023). Exploring an early numeracy screening measure for English learners in primary grades.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,  63 , 278-287.

*Brankaer, C., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2017). Symbolic magnitude processing in elementary school children: A group administered paper-and-pencil measure (SYMP Test).  Behavior Research Methods ,  49 , 1361-1373.

*Brendefur, J. L., Johnson, E. S., Thiede, K. W., Strother, S., & Severson, H. H. (2018). Developing a multi-dimensional early elementary mathematics screener and diagnostic tool: The primary mathematics assessment.  Early Childhood Education Journal ,  46 , 153-157.

*Bugden, S., Peters, L., Nosworthy, N., Archibald, L., & Ansari, D. (2021). Identifying children with persistent developmental dyscalculia from a 2‐min test of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude processing.  Mind, Brain, and Education , 15 (1), 88-102.

*Bunck, M. J. A., Terlien, E., van Groenestijn, M., Toll, S. W. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2017). Observing and analyzing children’s mathematical development, based on action theory.  Educational Studies in Mathematics ,  96 , 289-304.

*Burts, D. C., & Kim, D. H. (2014). The teaching strategies GOLD assessment system: Measurement properties and use.  HS Dialog: The Research to Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field ,  17 (3). https://doi.org/10.55370/hsdialog.v17i3.170

*Butterworth, B. (2003).  Dyscalculia screener . NferNelson Pub.

Butterworth, B. (2005). Developmental dyscalculia. In  The Handbook of Mathematical Cognition  (pp. 455–467). Psychology Press.

*Ceylan, M., & Aslan, D. (2023). Length, area, volume, and angle and turn measurement in early childhood: Validating the early measurement assessment tool.  International Journal of Early Years Education , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2023.2269978

*Chatzaki, M. A., Skillen, J., Ricken, G., & Seitz-Stein, K. (2024, March). Exploring the potential of a game-based preschool assessment of mathematical competencies. In  Frontiers in Education  (Vol. 9, p. 1337716). Frontiers Media SA.

Cheng, W., Lei, P. W., & DiPerna, J. C. (2017). An examination of construct validity for the EARLI numeracy skill measures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85 (1), 54–72.

Clarke, B., Gersten, R. M., Dimino, J., & Rolfhus, E. (2011). Assessing student proficiency of number sense (ASPENS) . Sopris Learning: Cambium Learning Group.

*Clarke, B., Strand Cary, M. G., Shanley, L., & Sutherland, M. (2020). Exploring the promise of a number line assessment to help identify students at-risk in mathematics.  Assessment for Effective Intervention ,  45 (2), 151-160.

*Clarke, B., Sutherland, M., Doabler, C. T., Lesner, T., Fainstein, D., Nolan, K., Landis, B., & Kosty, D. (2023). Developing and investigating the promise of early measurement screeners.  School Psychology Review ,  52 (6), 696–708.

*Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. H., & Liu, X. H. (2008). Development of a measure of early mathematics achievement using the Rasch model: The research‐based early maths assessment.  Educational Psychology ,  28 (4), 457-482.

*Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Tatsuoka, C., Banse, H., & Tatsuoka, K. (2022). Evaluating a model for developing cognitively diagnostic adaptive assessments: The case of young children’s length measurement.  Journal of Research in Childhood Education ,  36 (1), 143-158.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Wolfe, C. B. (2011). T.E.A.M.-Tools for early assessment in mathematics . SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Connolly, A. (1988). KeyMath-revised: A diagnostic inventory of essential mathematics examiner manual . American Guidance Service.

Google Scholar  

Cosso, J., Purpura, D. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2024). The home numeracy environment of Latine families: A mixed methods measurement development study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 11 (6), 853–870.

Costa, H. M., Nicholson, B., Donlan, C., & Van Herwegen, J. (2018). Low performance on mathematical tasks in preschoolers: The importance of domain-general and domain-specific abilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62 (4), 292–302.

Crawford, C., & Cribb, J. (2013). Reading and maths skills at age 10 and earnings in later life: a brief analysis using the British Cohort Study . (CAYT Impact Study REP03 ). Institute for Fiscal Studies and CAYT.

*Cruz, J., Alves, D., Carvalho, M., Mendes, S. A., Rodrigues, B., & Cadime, I. (2024). Assessment of math abilities before school entry: a tool development. In  Frontiers in Education  (Vol. 8, p. 1347143). Frontiers Media SA.

*Csapó, B., Molnár, G. & Nagy, J. (2014).Computer-based assessment of school readiness and early reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (3), 639–650.

*David, C., Dobrean, A., & Hans Van Luit, J. E. (2015). Psychometric properties of early numeracy test in Romanian language preliminary data.  Transylvanian Journal of Psychology/Erdélyi Pszichológiai Szemle ,  16 (1), 57.

Davis-Kean, P. E., Domina, T., Kuhfeld, M., Ellis, A., & Gershoff, E. T. (2022). It matters how you start: Early numeracy mastery predicts high school math course-taking and college attendance. Infant and Child Development, 31 (2), e2281.

*de León, S. C., Jiménez, J. E., García, E., Gutiérrez, N., & Gil, V. (2021). Universal screening in mathematics for Spanish students in first grade.  Learning Disability Quarterly ,  44 (2), 123-135.

*de León, S. C., Jiménez, J. E., & Hernández-Cabrera, J. A. (2022). Confirmatory factor analysis of the indicators of basic early math skills.  Current Psychology ,  41 , 585-596.

De Smedt, B. (2022). Individual differences in mathematical cognition: A Bert’s eye view. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 46 , 101175.

De Vos, T. (1992). Tempo test rekenen (TTR) . Berkhout.

Devlin, D., Moeller, K., & Sella, F. (2022). The structure of early numeracy: Evidence from multi-factorial models. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 26 , 100171.

DiPerna, J. C., Morgan, P. L., & Lei, P. (2007). Development of early arithmetic, reading, and learning indicators for head start (EARLI Project). Semi-annual performance report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.

Dockrell, J., Hurry, J., Cowan, R., Flouri, E., & Dawson, A. (2017). Review of assessment measures in the early years: Language and literacy, numeracy and social emotional development and mental health . Education Endowment Foundation.

*Dong, Y., Clements, D. H., Day-Hess, C. A., Sarama, J., & Dumas, D. (2021). Measuring early childhood mathematical cognition: Validating and equating two forms of the Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment.  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment ,  39 (8), 983-998.

*Dong, Y., Dumas, D., Clements, D. H., Day-Hess, C. A., & Sarama, J. (2023).Evaluating the consequential validity of the research-based early mathematics assessment.  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment , 41 (5), 575-582.

*Dos Santos, F. H., Da Silva, P. A., Ribeiro, F. S., Dias, A. L. R. P., Frigerio, M. C., Dellatolas, G., & von Aster, M. (2012). Number processing and calculation in brazilian children aged 7-12 years.  The Spanish Journal of Psychology ,  15 (2), 513-525.

Draper, C. E., Barnett, L. M., Cook, C. J., Cuartas, J. A., Howard, S. J., McCoy, D. C., Merkley, R., Molano, A., Maldonado-Carreño, C., Obradović, J., Scerif, G., Valentini, N. C., Venetsanou, F., & Yousafzai, A. K. (2022). Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world’s child population underrepresented in research. Infant and Child Development, 32 (6), e2375.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). American Guidance Service.

Duraiappah, A.K., Atteveldt, N.M., Buil, J.M., Singh, K. and Wu, R., 2022. Summary for decision makers, reimagining education: The international science and evidence based education assessment. UNESCO MGIEP.

Elliott, C. D., Salerno, J. D., Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (2007). Differential ability scales Second edition . Harcourt Assessment.

*Erford, B. T., Bagley, D. L., Hopper, J. A., Lee, R. M., Panagopulos, K. A., & Preller, D. B. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Math Essential Skill Screener—Elementary Version (MESS‐E).  Psychology in the Schools ,  35 (2), 127-135.

*Eteng-Uket, S. (2023). The Development, validation, and standardization of a new tool: The Dyscalculia Test.  Numeracy ,  16 (2), 1.

Fidan, E. (2013). İlkokul Öğrencileri İçin Matematik Dersi Sayılar Öğrenme Alanında Başarı Testi Geliştirilmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

*Floyd, R. G., Hojnoski, R., & Key, J. (2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the preschool numeracy indicators.  School Psychology Review ,  35 (4), 627-644.

*Fritz, A., Balzer, L., Ehlert, A., Herholdt, R., & Ragpot, L. (2014). A mathematics competence test for Grade 1 children migrates from Germany to South Africa.  South African Journal of Childhood Education ,  4 (2), 114-133.

Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Powell, S. R. (2003). Grade 3 Math Battery (pp. 37203). Nashville, TN: Department of Special Education. Available from L. S. Fuchs, 228 Peabody, Vanderbilt University.

*Geary, D. C., Bailey, D. H., & Hoard, M. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool: The number sets test.  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment ,  27 (3), 265-279.

Gilmore, C. (2023). Understanding the complexities of mathematical cognition: A multi-level framework. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76 (9), 1953–1972.

Ginsburg, H., & Baroody, A. J. (2003).  TEMA-3: Test of early mathematics ability . Pro-ed.

Ginsburg, H., & Baroody, A. (2007). Test of early mathematics ability [Spanish language version, adapted by MC Núñez y I. Lozano].  TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain .

*Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, Y. S., & Pappas, S. (2016). A research-inspired and computer-guided clinical interview for mathematics assessment: Introduction, reliability and validity.  ZDM Mathematics Education ,  48 , 1003-1018.

Ginsburg, H. P., & Pappas, S. (2016). Invitation to the birthday party: Rationale and description. ZDM, 48 , 947–960.

Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best practices in using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 699–720). National Association of School Psychologists.

Hakkarainen, A., Cordier, R., Parsons, L., Yoon, S., Laine, A., Aunio, P., & Speyer, R. (2023). A systematic review of functional numeracy measures for 9–12-year-olds: Validity and reliability evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 119 , 102172.

*Halpin, P. F., Wolf, S., Yoshikawa, H., Rojas, N., Kabay, S., Pisani, L., & Dowd, A. J. (2019). Measuring early learning and development across cultures: Invariance of the IDELA across five countries.  Developmental Psychology ,  55 (1), 23.

*Hassler Hallstedt, M., & Ghaderi, A. (2018).Tablets instead of paper-based tests for young children? Comparability between paper and tablet versions of the mathematical Heidelberger Rechen Test 1-4.  Educational Assessment ,  23 (3), 195-210.

*Hawes, Z., Nosworthy, N., Archibald, L., & Ansari, D. (2019). Kindergarten children’s symbolic number comparison skills relates to 1st grade mathematics achievement: Evidence from a two-minute paper-and-pencil test.  Learning and Instruction ,  59 , 21-33.

*Hellstrand, H., Korhonen, J., Räsänen, P., Linnanmäki, K., & Aunio, P. (2020). Reliability and validity evidence of the early numeracy test for identifying children at risk for mathematical learning difficulties.  International Journal of Educational Research ,  102 , 101580.

*Henning, E., Balzer, L., Ehlert, A., & Fritz, A. (2021). Development of an instrument to assess early number concept development in four South African languages.  South African Journal of Education ,  41 (4), 1-12.

Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Berke, K.-L., & Bickart, T. S. (2010). Teaching strategies GOLD® objectives for development & learning . Teaching Strategies LLC.

Hornburg, C. B., Borriello, G. A., Kung, M., Lin, J., Litkowski, E., Cosso, J., ... & Purpura, D. J. (2021). Next directions in measurement of the home mathematics environment: An international and interdisciplinary perspective.  Journal of Numerical Cognition ,  7 (2), 195.

*Howard, S. J., Neilsen-Hewett, C., de Rosnay, M., Melhuish, E. C., & Buckley-Walker, K. (2022). Validity, reliability and viability of pre-school educators’ use of early years toolbox early numeracy.  Australasian Journal of Early Childhood ,  47 (2), 92-106.

Hresko, W. P., Peak, P. K., Herron, S. R., & Hicks, D. L. (2000).  Young children's achievement test: YCAT-2 . Pro-ed.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.

Huang, Q., Sun, J., Lau, E. Y. H., & Zhou, Y. L. (2022). Linking Chinese mothers’ and fathers’ scaffolding with children’s initiative and mathematics performance: A moderated mediation model. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 59 , 74–83.

Janssen, J., Scheltens, F., & Kraemer, J. M. (2005a).  Leerling- en onderwijsvolgsysteem rekenen-wiskunde groep 3  [Student and education monitoring system mathematics grade 1]. Cito.

Janssen, J., Scheltens, F., & Kraemer, J. M. (2005b).  Leerling- en onderwijsvolgsysteem rekenen-wiskunde groep 4  [Student and education monitoring system mathematics grade 2]. Cito.

Janssen, J., Scheltens, F., & Kraemer, J. M. (2006).  Leerling- en onderwijsvolgsysteem rekenen-wiskunde groep 5  [Student and education monitoring system mathematics grade 3]. Cito.

Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). The wide range achievement test-revised . Jastak Associates.

Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 582–600.

Jiménez, J. E., & de León, S. C. (2019). Indicadores de progreso de aprendizaje en matemáticas (IPAM)-2º curso de educación primaria [Indicators of basic early math skills (IPAM)- 2nd grade of primary school]. In J. E. Jimenez (Ed.), Modelo de respuesta a la intervención. Un enfoque preventivo para el abordaje de las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje [Response to intervention model. A preventive approach for learning disabilities]. Madrid: Pirámide.

*Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Ramineni, C., & Watkins, M. W. (2010).Validating a number sense screening tool for use in kindergarten and first grade: Prediction of mathematics proficiency in third grade.  School Psychology Review ,  39 (2), 181-195.

*Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J. J., & Dyson, N. (2012). Number Sense Screener TM (NSS TM ) User’s Guide, K-1, Research Edition. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Available from: https://brookespublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NSS-technical-report.pdf . Accessed May 2024.

*Józsa, K., Oo, T. Z., Borbélyová, D., & Zentai, G. (2023). Exploring the accuracy and consistency of a school readiness assessment tool for preschoolers: Reliability, validity and measurement invariance analysis.  Journal of Intelligence ,  11 (10), 189.

Kang, D., Zhou, X., Tian, L. L., Li, Z. Q., & Xu, J. J. (2014). On the applicability of test of early child mathematics ability (Chinese edition) among 5–6 year-old children in Shanghai.  Early Childhood Education (Educational Sciences) ,  6 (6), 39–45.

*Karagiannakis, G., & Noël, M. P. (2020). Mathematical profile test: A preliminary evaluation of an online assessment for mathematics skills of children in grades 1–6.  Behavioral Sciences ,  10 (8), 126.

*Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Perry, L., Platas, L. M., & Sitbakhan, Y. (2018). Aligning test scoring procedures with test uses of the early grade mathematics assessment: A balancing act. Global Education Review, 5 (3), 143-164.

*Kilday, C. R., Kinzie, M. B., Mashburn, A. J., & Whittaker, J. V. (2012). Accuracy of teacher judgments of preschoolers’ math skills.  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment ,  30 (2), 148-159.

Kilgus, S. P., Methe, S. A., Maggin, D. M., & Tomasula, J. L. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (RCBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology , 52 (4), 377–405.

*Kiziltepe, G. I. (2019). Validity and reliability study for the Turkish version of number sense screener for 60-71 months-old children.  Journal of Education and Training Studies ,  7 (2), 24-35.

Klingbeil, D. A., Maurice, S. A., Van Norman, E. R., Nelson, P. M., Birr, C., Hanrahan, A. R., ... & Lopez, A. L. (2019). Improving mathematics screening in middle school.  School Psychology Review ,  48 (4), 383–398.

Koerhuis, I. (2010). Rekenen voor kleuters [Mathematics for kindergarten] . Cito.

*Koponen, T., Salminen, J., Aunio, P., Polet, J., & Hellstrand, H. (2011). LukiMat - Bedömning av lärandet : Identifiering av stödbehov i matematik i förskola. Handbok [LukiMat – Assessment for learning: Identifying children in need of support in mathematics in kindergarten. Handbook].

*Koumoula, A., Tsironi, V., Stamouli, V., Bardani, I., Siapati, S., Graham, A., Kafantaris, I., Charalambidou, I., Dellatolas, G & Von Aster, M. (2004). An epidemiological study of number processing and mental calculation in Greek schoolchildren.  Journal of Learning Disabilities ,  37 (5), 377-388.

*Kowalski, K., Brown, R. D., Pretti‐Frontczak, K., Uchida, C., & Sacks, D. F. (2018). The accuracy of teachers’ judgments for assessing young children’s emerging literacy and math skills.  Psychology in the Schools ,  55 (9), 997-1012.

Lafay, A., Osana, H. P., Michaud, S., & Nosworthy, N. (2020). Dépistage des difficultés mathématiques: Validation et normalisation franco-québécoise du Tempo Test Rekenen et du Numeracy Screener version française. Glossa, 127 , 32–57.

*Lambert, R. G., Kim, D. H., & Burts, D. C. (2014). Using teacher ratings to track the growth and development of young children using the Teaching Strategies GOLD® assessment system.  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment ,  32 (1), 27-39.

*Lambert, R. G., Kim, D. H., & Burts, D. C. (2015). The measurement properties of the Teaching Strategies GOLD® assessment system.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,  33 , 49-63.

*Lee, Y. S., & Lembke, E. (2016). Developing and evaluating a kindergarten to third grade CBM mathematics assessment.  ZDM Mathematics Education ,  48 , 1019-1030.

Lee, Y. S., Pappas, S., Chiong, C., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2010). mCLASS®: MATH—technical Manual . Wireless Generation Inc.

*Lee, E. K., Jung, J., Kang, S. H., Park, E. H., Choi, I., Park, S., & Yoo, H. K. (2017). Development of the computerized mathematics test in Korean children and adolescents.  Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ,  28 (3), 174-182.

*Lee, Y. S. (2016). Psychometric analyses of the Birthday Party.  ZDM Mathematics Education ,  48 , 961-975.

*Lei, P. W., Wu, Q., DiPerna, J. C., & Morgan, P. L. (2009). Developing short forms of the EARLI numeracy measures: Comparison of item selection methods.  Educational and Psychological Measurement ,  69 (5), 825-842.

Lewis, K. E., & Fisher, M. B. (2016). Taking stock of 40 years of research on mathematical learning disability: Methodological issues and future directions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47 (4), 338–371.

*Li, L., Zhou, X., Huang, J., Tu, D., Gao, X., Yang, Z., & Li, M. (2020). Assessing kindergarteners’ mathematics problem solving: The development of a cognitive diagnostic test.  Studies in Educational Evaluation ,  66 , 100879.

*Lin, J., Napoli, A. R., Schmitt, S. A., & Purpura, D. J. (2021).The relation between parent ratings and direct assessments of preschoolers’ numeracy skills.  Learning and Instruction ,  71 , 101375.

Linacre, J. M. (2017). Teaching Rasch measurement. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 31 (2), 1630–1631.

Lonigan, C. J., & Wilson, S. B. (2008). Report on the revised Get Ready to Read! screening tool: Psychometrics and normative information [Technical report]. National Center for Learning Disabilities.

*Lopez-Pedersen, A., Mononen, R., Korhonen, J., Aunio, P., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2021). Validation of an early numeracy screener for first graders.  Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research ,  65 (3), 404-424.

*Malofeeva, E., Day, J., Saco, X., Young, L., & Ciancio, D. (2004). Construction and evaluation of a number sense test with head start children.  Journal of Educational Psychology ,  96 (4), 648-659.

Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2011). Expressive oneword picture vocabulary test manual (4th ed.). Academic Therapy Publications.

Mazzocco, M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). Child Development, 82 (4), 1224–1237.

McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Technical manual, Woodcock–Johnson III normative update . Riverside.

*Mejias, S., Muller, C., & Schiltz, C. (2019). Assessing mathematical school readiness.  Frontiers in Psychology ,  10 , 1173.

*Methe, S. A., Hintze, J. M., & Floyd, R. G. (2008). Validation and decision accuracy of early numeracy skill indicators.  School Psychology Review ,  37 (3), 359-373.

Milburn, T. F., Lonigan, C. J., DeFlorio, L., & Klein, A. (2019). Dimensionality of preschoolers’ informal mathematical abilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47 , 487–495.

Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2016). The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 20 , 105–113.

Morsanyi, K., van Bers, B. M., McCormack, T., & McGourty, J. (2018). The prevalence of specific learning disorder in mathematics and comorbidity with other developmental disorders in primary school-age children. British Journal of Psychology, 109 (4), 917–940.

*Moura, R., Lopes-Silva, J. B., Vieira, L. R., Paiva, G. M., Prado, A. C. D. A., Wood, G., & Haase, V. G. (2015). From “five” to 5 for 5 minutes: Arabic number transcoding as a short, specific, and sensitive screening tool for mathematics learning difficulties.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology ,  30 (1), 88-98.

Muñez, D., Bull, R., Lee, K., & Ruiz, C. (2023). Heterogeneity in children at risk of math learning difficulties. Child Development, 94 (4), 1033–1048.

Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N., & Ardoino, G. (2009). Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz. Ciencias Psicológicas, 3 (2), 245–246.

NCII. (2019). Academic progress monitoring tools chart rating rubric. National Centre on Intensive Intervention.

Nelson, G., Kiss, A. J., Codding, R. S., McKevett, N. M., Schmitt, J. F., Park, S., ... & Hwang, J. (2023). Review of curriculum-based measurement in mathematics: An update and extension of the literature.  Journal of School Psychology ,  97 , 1–42.

Nelson, G., & Powell, S. R. (2018). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (6), 523–539.

Newcomer, P. L. (2001).  DAB-3: Diagnostic Achievement Battery . Pro-Ed.

Nogues, C. P., & Dorneles, B. V. (2021). Systematic review on the precursors of initial mathematical performance. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2 , 100035.

*Nosworthy, N., Bugden, S., Archibald, L., Evans, B., & Ansari, D. (2013). A two-minute paper-and-pencil test of symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude processing explains variability in primary school children’s arithmetic competence.  PloS One ,  8 (7), e67918.

*Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Evans, D., & Barros, R. (2015).Assessing quantitative reasoning in young children.  Mathematical Thinking and Learning ,  17 (2-3), 178-196.

Olkun, S., Can, D., & Yeşilpınar, M. (2013). Hesaplama Performansı Testi: Geçerlilik Ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması . Paper presented at the USOS 2013 Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Sempozyumu.

*Olkun, S., Altun, A., Şahin, S. G., & Kaya, G. (2016). Psychometric properties of a screening tool for elementary school student’s math learning disorder risk.  International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research ,  15 (12), 48-66.

Outhwaite, L., Early, E., Herodotou, C., & Van Herwegen, J. (2022). Can Maths apps add value to young children's learning? A systematic review and content analysis. Nuffield Foundation.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.  Bmj ,  372 , n71.

Paik, J. H., van Gelderen, L., Gonzales, M., de Jong, P. F., & Hayes, M. (2011). Cultural differences in early math skills among US, Taiwanese, Dutch, and Peruvian preschoolers. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19 (2), 133–143.

Panter, J. E., & Bracken, B. A. (2009). Validity of the Bracken School Readiness Assessment for predicting first grade readiness. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (5), 397–409.

*Perry, L. (2020). Development of an early grade relational reasoning subtask: Collecting validity evidence on technical adequacy and reliability.  International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ,  18 (3), 589-609.

*Pisani, L., Borisova, I., & Dowd, A. J. (2018). Developing and validating the international development and early learning assessment (IDELA).  International Journal of Educational Research ,  91 , 1-15.

*Pisani, L., Seiden, J., & Wolf, S. (2022). Longitudinal evidence on the predictive validity of the International Development and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA).  Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability ,  34 (2), 173-194.

Pitchford, N. J., & Outhwaite, L. A. (2016). Can touch screen tablets be used to assess cognitive and motor skills in early years primary school children? A cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 217270.

Prinsen, C. A., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., De Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27 , 1147–1157.

*Purpura, D. J., Reid, E. E., Eiland, M. D., & Baroody, A. J. (2015).Using a brief preschool early numeracy skills screener to identify young children with mathematics difficulties.  School Psychology Review ,  44 (1), 41–59.

Purpura, D. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2015). Early numeracy assessment: The development of the preschool early numeracy scales. Early Education and Development, 26 (2), 286–313.

*Pushparatnam, A., Luna Bazaldua, D. A., Holla, A., Azevedo, J. P., Clarke, M., & Devercelli, A. (2021).Measuring early childhood development among 4–6 year olds: The identification of psychometrically robust items across diverse contexts.  Frontiers in Public Health ,  9 , 1-11.

*Ralston, N. C., Li, M., & Taylor, C. (2018). The development and initial validation of an assessment of algebraic thinking for students in the elementary grades.  Educational Assessment ,  23 (3), 211-227.

Ramani, G. B., Siegler, R. S., & Hitti, A. (2012). Taking it to the classroom: Number board games as a small group learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 661.

Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135 (6), 943.

*Rhodes, K. T., Branum-Martin, L., Morris, R. D., Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. A. (2015). Testing math or testing language? The construct validity of the KeyMath-Revised for children with intellectual disability and language difficulties.  American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities ,  120 (6), 542-568.

Ricken, G., Fritz, A., & Balzer, L. (2013). MARKO-D – Mathematics und Rechnen – Test zur Erfassung von Konzepten im Vorschulalter [MARKO-D: Mathematics and arithmetic – Test for assessing concepts in pre-school age] . Hogrefe.

RTI International. (2014). Early Grade Mathematics Assessment (EGMA) Toolkit. RTI International.

*Russo, J. M., Williford, A. P., Markowitz, A. J., Vitiello, V. E., & Bassok, D. (2019). Examining the validity of a widely-used school readiness assessment: Implications for teachers and early childhood programs.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,  48 , 14-25.

Ryan, J. (2023). Introducing the Self-Administered EGRA and EGMA (SA-EGRA/SA-EGMA). Available from: https://shared.rti.org/content/introducing-self-administered-egra-and-egma-sa-egra-sa-egma-0 . Accessed May 2024.

SASC. (2019). SASC Guidance on assessment of dyscalculia and maths difficulties within other specific learning difficulties . SASC: SpLD Assessment Standards Committee.

*Save the Children. (2019). IDELA – The International Development and Early Learning Assessment. Adaptation and Administration Guide. Available from: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/idela-the-international-development-and-early-learning-assessment/ . Accessed May 2024.

Scerif, G., Gattas, S., Godfrey, A., Hawes, Z., Howard, S., Merkley, R., O’Connor, R., & Sučević, J. (2023). Orchestrating numeracy and the executive - “The ONE” Programme. Nuffield Foundation. Available from: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Scerif-Final-report-Fostering-resilience-by-injecting-executive-challenge-into-early-maths.pdf . Accessed May 2024.

Schrank, F.A., McGrew, K.S., & Woodcock, R.W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III assessment service bulletin number 2 technical abstract. Riverside Publishing Company.

Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N., Wendling, B. J., & LaForte, E. M. (2014).  Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of achievement: Form C . Riverside Publishing Company.

Sella, F., Onnivello, S., Lunardon, M., Lanfranchi, S., & Zorzi, M. (2021). Training basic numerical skills in children with Down syndrome using the computerized game “The Number Race.” Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 2087.

*Shavitt, I., de Araujo Scatollin, M. A., Rossi, A. S. U., Mercadante, M. P., Gamez, L., Resegue, R. M., ... & do Rosário, M. C. (2022). Transcultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the International Development and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA) in Brazilian pre-school children.  International Journal of Educational Research Open ,  3 , 100138.

Simms, V., McKeaveney, C., Sloan, S., & Gilmore, C. (2019). Interventions to improve mathematical achievement in primary school-aged children . Nuffield Foundation .

*Singer, V., & Cuadro, A. (2014). Psychometric properties of an experimental test for the assessment of basic arithmetic calculation efficiency/Propiedades psicométricas de una prueba experimental para la evaluación de la eficacia del cálculo aritmético básico.  Estudios de Psicología ,  35 (1), 183-192.

*Sjoe, N. M., Bleses, D., Dybdal, L., Tideman, E., Kirkeby, H., Sehested, K. K., Nielsen, H., Kreiner, S. & Jensen, P. (2019). Short Danish version of the Tools for Early Assessment in Math (TEAM) for 3–6-year-olds.  Early Education and Development ,  30 (2), 238-258.

Snelling, M., Dawes, A., Biersteker, L., Girdwood, E., & Tredoux, C. (2019). The development of a South African Early Learning Outcomes Measure: A South African instrument for measuring early learning program outcomes. Child Care, Health and Development, 45 (2), 257–270.

*Sutherland, M., Clarke, B., Nese, J. F., Cary, M. S., Shanley, L., Furjanic, D., & Durán, L. (2021). Investigating the utility of a kindergarten number line assessment compared to an early numeracy screening battery.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,  55 , 119-128.

Szűcs, D., & Goswami, U. (2013). Developmental dyscalculia: Fresh perspectives. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2 (2), 33–37.

*ten Braak, D., & Størksen, I. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Ani Banani Math Test.  European Journal of Developmental Psychology ,  18 (4), 610-628.

*Tsigilis, N., Krousorati, K., Gregoriadis, A., & Grammatikopoulos, V. (2023). Psychometric evaluation of the preschool early numeracy skills test–brief version within the item response theory framework.  Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice . https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12536

Turan, E., & De Smedt, B. (2022). Mathematical language and mathematical abilities in preschool: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 36 , 100457.

UNESCO. (2017). More than one-half of children and adolescents are not learning worldwide. UIS Fact Sheet No. 46.

UNESCO. (2023). Early childhood care and education. An investment in wellbeing, gender equality, social cohesion, and lifelong learning. Available from: https://www.unesco.org/en/early-childhood-education . Accessed May 2024.

*Van de Rijt, B., Godfrey, R., Aubrey, C., van Luit, J. E., Ghesquière, P., Torbeyns, J., Hasemann, K., Tancig, S., Kavkler, M., Magajna, L., & Tzouriadou, M. (2003). The development of early numeracy in Europe.  Journal of Early Childhood Research ,  1 (2), 155-180.

Van Herwegen, J., & Simms, V. (2020). Mathematical development in Williams syndrome: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 100 , 103609.

Van Herwegen, J., Costa, H. M., Nicholson, B., & Donlan, C. (2018). Improving number abilities in low achieving preschoolers: Symbolic versus non-symbolic training programs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 77 , 1–11.

*Van Hoogmoed, A. H., Van den Ham, A., Jordan, A., Duchhardt, C., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Heinze, A. (2022). Exploring the reliability, validity, and dimensionality of the ‘Kieler kindergarten test for mathematics’.  Pedagogische Studiën ,  99 (4), 304-324.

Van Luit, J. E. H., & Van de Rijt, B. A. M. (2009). Utrechtse getalbegrip toets-Revised [Early numeracy test-Revised] . Graviant.

Van Luit, J. E. H., Van de Rijt, B. A. M. & Pennings, A. H. (1994). Utrechtse Getalbegrip Toets [Utrecht Test of Number Sense]. Graviant.

Vanbinst, K., Ghesquière, P., & De Smedt, B. (2014). Arithmetic strategy development and its domain-specific and domain-general cognitive correlates: A longitudinal study in children with persistent mathematical learning difficulties. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35 (11), 3001–3013.

*Vessonen, T., Widlund, A., Hakkarainen, A., & Aunio, P. (2023). Validating the early numeracy teacher rating scale for preschoolers (TRS–EN).  European Early Childhood Education Research Journal ,  31 (2), 205-224.

*Viapiana, V. F., Mendonça Filho, E. J. D., Fonseca, R. P., Giacomoni, C. H., & Stein, L. M. (2016). Development of the arithmetic subtest of the school achievement test-Second Edition.  Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica ,  29 (39), 1–10.

*Vitiello, V. E., & Williford, A. P. (2021). Alignment of teacher ratings and child direct assessments in preschool: A closer look at teaching strategies GOLD.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,  56 , 114-123.

von Aster, M. G., Weinhold Zulauf, M., & Horn, R. (2006). Zareki-R Neuropsychologische Testbatterie für Zahlenverarbeitung und Rechnen bei Kindern [Neuropsychological Test Battery for Number Processing and Calculation in Children ]. Harcourt Test Services.

Wechsler, D. (1967). Manual WPPSI: Wechsler Pre-school and Primary Intelligence Scale . Psychological Corp.

Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test . Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1997), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third edition [Greek version]. Hellinika Grammata.

*Weiland, C., Wolfe, C. B., Hurwitz, M. D., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2012). Early mathematics assessment: Validation of the short form of a prekindergarten and kindergarten mathematics measure.  Educational Psychology ,  32 (3), 311-333.

*Wolf, S., Halpin, P., Yoshikawa, H., Dowd, A. J., Pisani, L., & Borisova, I. (2017). Measuring school readiness globally: Assessing the construct validity and measurement invariance of the International Development and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA) in Ethiopia.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,  41 , 21-36.

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson: Tests of achievement–revised . DLM.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III NU complete . Riverside Publishing.

Yao, S. Y., Muñez, D., Bull, R., Lee, K., Khng, K. H., & Poon, K. (2017). Rasch modeling of the test of early mathematics ability–third edition with a sample of K1 children in Singapore. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35 (6), 615–627.

Yuste-Hernanz, C. (2002). BADyG-E1:Batería de aptitudes diferencialesy generales [The battery of differential and general abilities] (2nd ed). Ciencias de la Educación Preescolar y Especial, CEPE.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Marcella Lam, Victoria Levy, and Camilla Mendizabal for their assistance in record screening and data extraction.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK

Laura A. Outhwaite & Jo Van Herwegen

Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Pirjo Aunio

Department of Psychology and Human Development, IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK

Jaimie Ka Yu Leung & Jo Van Herwegen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura A. Outhwaite .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the IOE ethics committee (REC1689).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Outhwaite, L.A., Aunio, P., Leung, J.K.Y. et al. Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 110 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6

Download citation

Accepted : 05 September 2024

Published : 17 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mathematics
• Early Childhood
• Measurement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

5 Current Issues in the Field of Early Childhood Education

Learning Objectives

Objective 1: Identify current issues that impact stakeholders in early childhood care and education.

Objective 2: Describe strategies for understanding current issues as a professional in early childhood care and education.

Objective 3: Create an informed response to a current issue as a professional in early childhood care and education.

Current Issues in the Field—Part 1

There’s one thing you can be sure of in the field of early childhood: the fact that the field is always changing. We make plans for our classrooms based on the reality we and the children in our care are living in, and then, something happens in that external world, the place where “life happens,” and our reality changes. Or sometimes it’s a slow shift: you go to a training and hear about new research, you think it over, read a few articles, and over time you realize the activities you carefully planned are no longer truly relevant to the lives children are living today, or that you know new things that make you rethink whether your practice is really meeting the needs of every child.

This is guaranteed to happen at some point. Natural events might occur that affect your community, like forest fires or tornadoes, or like COVID-19, which closed far too many child care programs and left many other early educators struggling to figure out how to work with children online. Cultural and political changes happen, which affect your children’s lives, or perhaps your understanding of their lives, like the Black Lives Matter demonstrations that brought to light how much disparity and tension exist and persist in the United States. New information may come to light through research that allows us to understand human development very differently, like the advancements in neuroscience that help us understand how trauma affects children’s brains, and how we as early educators can counteract those affects and build resilience.

And guess what—all this change is a good thing! Read this paragraph slowly—it’s important!  Change is good because we as providers of early childhood care and education are working with much more than a set of academic skills that need to be imparted to children; we are working with the whole child, and preparing the child to live successfully in the world. So when history sticks its foot into our nice calm stream of practice, the waters get muddied. But the good news is that mud acts as a fertilizer so that we as educators and leaders in the field have the chance to learn and grow, to bloom into better educators for every child, and, let’s face it, to become better human beings!

The work of early childhood care and education is so full, so complex, so packed with details to track and respond to, from where Caiden left his socks, to whether Amelia’s parents are going to be receptive to considering evaluation for speech supports, and how to adapt the curriculum for the child who has never yet come to circle time. It might make you feel a little uneasy—or, let’s face it, even overwhelmed—to also consider how the course of history may cause you to deeply rethink what you do over time.

That’s normal. Thinking about the complexity of human history while pushing Keisha on the swings makes you completely normal! As leaders in the field, we must learn to expect that we will be called upon to change, maybe even dramatically, over time. 

Let me share a personal story with you: I had just become director of an established small center, and was working to sort out all the details that directing encompassed: scheduling, billing policies, and most of all, staffing frustrations about who got planning time, etc. But I was also called upon to substitute teach on an almost daily basis, so there was a lot of disruption to my carefully made daily plans to address the business end, or to work with teachers to seek collaborative solutions to long-standing conflict. I was frustrated by not having time to do the work I felt I needed to do, and felt there were new small crises each day. I couldn’t get comfortable with my new position, nor with the way my days were constantly shifting away from my plans. It was then that a co-worker shared a quote with me from Thomas F. Crum, who writes about how to thrive in difficult working conditions: “Instead of seeing the rug being pulled from under us, we can learn to dance on a shifting carpet”.

Wow! That gave me a new vision, one where I wasn’t failing and flailing, but could become graceful in learning to be responsive to change big and small. I felt relieved to have a different way of looking at my progress through my days: I wasn’t flailing at all—I was dancing! Okay, it might be a clumsy dance, and I might bruise my knees, but that idea helped me respond to each day’s needs with courage and hope.

I especially like this image for those of us who work with young children. I imagine a child hopping around in the middle of a parachute, while the other children joyfully whip their corners up and down. The child in the center feels disoriented, exhilarated, surrounded by shifting color, sensation, and laughter. When I feel like there’s too much change happening, I try to see the world through that child’s eyes. It’s possible to find joy and possibility in the disorientation, and the swirl of thoughts and feelings, and new ways of seeing and being that come from change.

Key Takeaways

Our practices in the classroom and as leaders must constantly adapt to changes in our communities and our understanding of the world around us, which gives us the opportunity to continue to grow and develop.

You are a leader, and change is happening, and you are making decisions about how to move forward, and how to adapt thoughtfully. The good news is that when this change happens, our field has really amazing tools for adapting. We can develop a toolkit of trusted sources that we can turn to to provide us with information and strategies for ethical decision making.

If You’re Afraid of Falling…

One of the most important of these is the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, which expresses a commitment to core values for the field, and a set of principles for determining ethical behavior and decision-making. As we commit to the code, we commit to:

• Appreciate childhood as a unique and valuable stage of the human life cycle
• Base our work on knowledge of how children develop and learn
• Appreciate and support the bond between the child and family
• Recognize that children are best understood and supported in the context of family, culture,* community, and society
• Respect the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member, and colleague)
• Respect diversity in children, families, and colleagues
• Recognize that children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust and respect.

If someone asked us to make a list of beliefs we have about children and families, we might not have been able to come up with a list that looked just like this, but, most of us in the field are here because we share these values and show up every day with them in our hearts.

The Code of Ethical Conduct can help bring what’s in your heart into your head. It’s a complete tool to help you think carefully about a dilemma, a decision, or a plan, based on these values. Sometimes we don’t make the “right” decision and need to change our minds, but as long as we make a decision based on values about the importance of the well-being of all children and families, we won’t be making a decision that we will regret.

An Awfully Big Current Issue—Let’s Not Dance Around It

In the field of early childhood, issues of prejudice have long been important to research, and in this country, Head Start was developed more than 50 years ago with an eye toward dismantling disparity based on ethnicity or skin color (among other things). However, research shows that this gap has not closed. Particularly striking, in recent years, is research addressing perceptions of the behavior of children of color and the numbers of children who are asked to leave programs.

In fact, studies of expulsion from preschool showed that black children were twice as likely to be expelled as white preschoolers, and 3.6 times as likely to receive one or more suspensions. This is deeply concerning in and of itself, but the fact that preschool expulsion is predictive of later difficulties is even more so:

Starting as young as infancy and toddlerhood, children of color are at highest risk for being expelled from early childhood care and education programs. Early expulsions and suspensions lead to greater gaps in access to resources for young children and thus create increasing gaps in later achievement and well-being… Research indicates that early expulsions and suspensions predict later expulsions and suspensions, academic failure, school dropout, and an increased likelihood of later incarceration.

Why does this happen? It’s complicated. Studies on the K-12 system show that some of the reasons include:

• uneven or biased implementation of disciplinary policies
• discriminatory discipline practices
• school racial climate
• under resourced programs
• inadequate education and training for teachers on bias

In other words, educators need more support and help in reflecting on their own practices, but there are also policies and systems in place that contribute to unfair treatment of some groups of children.

Key Takeaway

So…we have a lot of research that continues to be eye opening and cause us to rethink our practices over time, plus a cultural event—in the form of the Black Lives Matter movement—that push the issue of disparity based on skin color directly in front of us. We are called to respond. You are called to respond.

How Will I Ever Learn the Steps?

Woah—how do I respond to something so big and so complex and so sensitive to so many different groups of people?

As someone drawn to early childhood care and education, you probably bring certain gifts and abilities to this work.

• You probably already feel compassion for every child and want every child to have opportunities to grow into happy, responsible adults who achieve their goals. Remember the statement above about respecting the dignity and worth of every individual? That in itself is a huge start to becoming a leader working as an advocate for social justice.
• You may have been to trainings that focus on anti-bias and being culturally responsive.
• You may have some great activities to promote respect for diversity, and be actively looking for more.
• You may be very intentional about including materials that reflect people with different racial identities, genders, family structures.
• You may make sure that each family is supported in their home language and that multilingualism is valued in your program.
• You may even have spent some time diving into your own internalized biases.

This list could become very long! These are extremely important aspects of addressing injustice in early education which you can do to alter your individual practice with children.

As a leader in the field, you are called to think beyond your own practice.  As a leader you have the opportunity—the responsibility!—to look beyond your own practices and become an advocate for change. Two important recommendations (of many) from the NAEYC Advancing Equity in Early Childhood Education Position Statement, another important tool:

Speak out against unfair policies or practices and challenge biased perspectives.  Work to embed fair and equitable approaches in all aspects of early childhood program delivery, including standards, assessments, curriculum, and personnel practices.

Look for ways to work collectively with others who are committed to equity.  Consider it a professional responsibility to help challenge and change policies, laws, systems, and institutional practices that keep social inequities in place.

One take away I want you to grab from those last sentences: You are not alone. This work can be, and must be, collective.

As a leader, your sphere of influence is bigger than just you. You can influence the practices of others in your program and outside of it. You can influence policies, rules, choices about the tools you use, and ultimately, you can even challenge laws that are not fair to every child.

Who’s on your team? I want you to think for a moment about the people who help you in times where you are facing change. These are the people you can turn to for an honest conversation, where you can show your confusion and fear, and they will be supportive and think alongside you. This might include your friends, your partner, some or all of your coworkers, a former teacher of your own, a counselor, a pastor. Make a quick list of people you can turn to when you need to do some deep digging and ground yourself in your values.

And now, your workplace team: who are your fellow advocates in your workplace? Who can you reach out to when you realize something might need to change within your program? 

Wonderful. You’ve got other people to lean on in times of change. More can be accomplished together than alone. Let’s consider what you can do:

What is your sphere of influence? What are some small ways you can create room for growth within your sphere of influence? What about that workplace team? Do their spheres of influence add to your own?

Try drawing your sphere of influence: Draw yourself in the middle of the page, and put another circle around yourself, another circle around that, and another around that. Fill your circles in:

• Consider the first circle your personal sphere. Brainstorm family and friends who you can talk to about issues that are part of your professional life. You can put down their names, draw them, or otherwise indicate who they might be!
• Next, those you influence in your daily work, such as the children in your care, their families, maybe your co-workers land here.
• Next, those who make decisions about the system you are in—maybe this is your director or board, or even a PTA. 
• Next, think about the early childhood care and education community you work within. What kind of influence could you have on this community? Do you have friends who work at other programs you can have important conversations with to spread ideas? Are you part of a local Association for the Education of Young Children (AEYC)? Could you speak to the organizers of a local conference about including certain topics for sessions?
• And finally, how about state (and even national) policies? Check out The Children’s Institute to learn about state bills that impact childcare. Do you know your local representatives? Could you write a letter to your senator? Maybe you have been frustrated with the slow reimbursement and low rates for Employment Related Day Care subsidies and can find a place to share your story. You can call your local Child Care Resource and Referral, your local or state AEYC chapter, or visit childinst.org to find out how you can increase your reach! It’s probably a lot farther than you think!

Break It Down: Systemic Racism

When you think about injustice and the kind of change you want to make, there’s an important distinction to understand in the ways injustice happens in education (or anywhere else). First, there’s personal bias and racism, and of course it’s crucial as an educator to examine ourselves and our practices and responses. We all have bias and addressing it is an act of courage that you can model for your colleagues.

In addition, there’s another kind of bias and racism, and it doesn’t live inside of individual people, but inside of the systems we have built. Systemic racism exists in the structures and processes that have come into place over time, which allow one group of people a greater chance of succeeding than other specific groups of people.

Key Takeaways (Sidebar)

Systemic racism is also called institutional racism, because it exists – sometimes unquestioned – within institutions themselves.

In early childhood care and education, there are many elements that were built with middle class white children in mind. Many of our standardized tests were made with middle class white children in mind. The curriculum we use, the assessments we use, the standards of behavior we have been taught; they may have all been developed with middle class white children in mind.

Therefore it is important to consider whether they adequately and fairly work for all of the children in your program community. Do they have relevance to all children’s lived experience, development, and abilities? Who is being left out?

Imagine a vocabulary assessment in which children are shown common household items including a lawn mower…common if you live in a house; they might well be unfamiliar to a three-year-old who lives in an apartment building, however. The child may end up receiving a lower score, though their vocabulary could be rich, full of words that do reflect the objects in their lived experience.

The test is at fault, not the child’s experience. Yet the results of that test can impact the way educators, parents, and the child see their ability and likelihood to succeed.

You Don’t Have to Invent the Steps: Using an Equity Lens

In addition to the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and Equity Statement, another tool for addressing decision-making is an equity lens. To explain what an equity lens is, we first need to talk about equity. It’s a term you may have heard before, but sometimes people confuse it with equality. It’s a little different – equity is having the resources needed to be successful.

There’s a wonderful graphic of children looking over a fence at a baseball game. In one frame, each child stands at the fence; one is tall enough to see over the top; another stands tip-toe, straining to see; and another is simply too short. This is equality—everyone has the same chance, but not everyone is equally prepared. In the frame titled equity, each child stands on a stool just high enough so that they may all see over the fence. The stools are the supports they need to have an equitable outcome—being able to experience the same thing as their friend.

Seeking equity means considering who might not be able to see over the fence and figuring out how to build them a stool so that they have the same opportunity.

An equity lens, then, is a tool to help you look at decisions through a framework of equity. It’s a series of questions to ask yourself when making decisions. An equity lens is a process of asking a series of questions to better help you understand if something (a project, a curriculum, a parent meeting, a set of behavioral guidelines) is unfair to specific individuals or groups whose needs have been overlooked in the past. This lens might help you to identify the impact of your decisions on students of color, and you can also use the lens to consider the impact on students experiencing poverty, students in nontraditional families, students with differing abilities, students who are geographically isolated, students whose home language is other than English, etc.) The lens then helps you determine how to move past this unfairness by overcoming barriers and providing equitable opportunities to all children.

Some states have adopted a version of the equity lens for use in their early learning systems. Questions that are part of an equity lens might include:

• What decision is being made, and what kind of values or assumptions are affecting how we make the decision?
• Who is helping make the decision? Are there representatives of the affected group who get to have a voice in the process?
• Does the new activity, rule, etc. have the potential to make disparities worse? For instance, could it mean that families who don’t have a car miss out on a family night? Or will it make those disparities better?
• Who might be left out? How can we make sure they are included?
• Are there any potential unforeseen consequences of the decision that will impact specific groups? How can we try to make sure the impact will be positive?

You can use this lens for all kinds of decisions, in formal settings, like staff meetings, and you can also work to make them part of your everyday thinking. I have a sticky note on my desk that asks “Who am I leaving out”? This is an especially important question if the answer points to children who are people of color, or another group that is historically disadvantaged. If that’s the answer, you don’t have to scrap your idea entirely. Celebrate your awareness, and brainstorm about how you can do better for everyone—and then do it!

Embracing our Bruised Knees: Accepting Discomfort as We Grow

Inspirational author Brene Brown, who writes books, among other things, about being an ethical leader, said something that really walloped me: if we avoid the hard work of addressing unfairness (like talking about skin color at a time when our country is divided over it) we are prioritizing our discomfort over the pain of others. 

Imagine a parent who doesn’t think it’s appropriate to talk about skin color with young children, who tells you so with some anger in their voice. That’s uncomfortable, maybe even a little scary. But as you prioritize upholding the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of every individual, you can see that this is more important than trying to avoid discomfort. Changing your practice to avoid conflict with this parent means prioritizing your own momentary discomfort over the pain children of color in your program may experience over time.

We might feel vulnerable when we think about skin color, and we don’t want to have to have the difficult conversation. But if keeping ourselves safe from discomfort means that we might not be keeping children safe from very real and life-impacting racial disparity, we’re not making a choice that is based in our values.

Change is uncomfortable. It leaves us feeling vulnerable as we reexamine the ideas, strategies, even the deeply held beliefs that have served us so far. But as a leader, and with the call to support every child as they deserve, we can develop a sort of super power vision, where we can look unflinchingly around us and understand the hidden impacts of the structures we work within.

A Few Recent Dance Steps of My Own

You’re definitely not alone—researchers and thinkers in the field are doing this work alongside you, examining even our most cherished and important ideas about childhood and early education. For instance, a key phrase that we often use to underpin our decisions is developmentally appropriate practice, which NAEYC defines as “methods that promote each child’s optimal development and learning through a strengths-based, play-based approach to joyful, engaged learning.” The phrase is sometimes used to contrast against practices that might not be developmentally appropriate, like expecting three-year-olds to write their names or sit quietly in a 30 minute story time.

Let me tell you a story about how professional development is still causing me to stare change in the face! At the NAEYC conference in 2020, during a session in which Dr. Jie-Qi Chen presented on different perspectives on developmentally appropriate practice among early educators in China and the United States. She showed a video from a classroom in China to educators in both the US and in China. The video was of a circle time in which a child was retelling a story that the class knew well, and then the children were encouraged to offer feedback and rate how well the child had done. The children listened attentively, and then told the storytelling child how they had felt about his retelling, including identifying parts that had been left out, inaccuracies in the telling, and advice for speaking more clearly and loudly.

The educators were asked what the impact of the activity would be on the children and whether it was developmentally appropriate. The educators in the United States had deep concerns that the activity would be damaging to a child’s self esteem, and was therefore not developmentally appropriate. They also expressed concerns about the children being asked to sit for this amount of time. The educators in the classroom in China felt that it was developmentally appropriate and the children were learning not only storytelling skills but how to give and receive constructive criticism.

As I watched the video, I had the same thoughts as the educators from the US—I’m not used to children being encouraged to offer criticism rather than praise. But I also saw that the child in question had self-confidence and received the feedback positively. The children were very engaged and seemed to feel their feedback mattered.

What was most interesting to me here was the idea of self-esteem, and how important it is to us here in the United States, or rather, how much protecting we feel it needs. I realized that what educators were responding to weren’t questions of whether retelling a story was developmentally appropriate, or whether the critical thinking skills the children were being asked to display were developmentally appropriate, but rather whether the social scenario in which one child receives potentially negative feedback in front of their peers was developmentally appropriate, and that the responses were based in the different cultural ideas of self-esteem and individual vision versus collective success.

My point here is that even our big ideas, like developmentally appropriate practice, have an element of vulnerability to them. As courageous leaders, we need to turn our eyes even there to make sure that our cultural assumptions and biases aren’t affecting our ability to see clearly, that the reality of every child is honored within them, and that no one is being left out.  And that’s okay. It doesn’t mean we should scrap them. It’s not wrong to advocate for and use developmentally appropriate practice as a framework for our work—not at all! It just means we need to remember that it’s built from values that may be specific to our culture—and not everyone may have equal access to that culture. It means we should return to our big ideas with respect and bravery and sit with them and make sure they are still the ones that serve us best in the world we are living in right now, with the best knowledge we have right now.

You, Dancing With Courage

So…As a leader is early childhood, you will be called upon to be nimble, to make new decisions and reframe your practice when current events or new understanding disrupt your plans. When this happens, professional tools are available to you to help you make choices based on your ethical commitment to children.

Change makes us feel uncomfortable but we can embrace it to do the best by the children and families we work with. We can learn to develop our critical thinking skills so that we can examine our own beliefs and assumptions, both as individuals and as a leader.

Remember that person dancing on the shifting carpet? That child in the middle of the parachute? They might be a little dizzy, but with possibility. They might lose their footing, but in that uncertainty, in the middle of the billowing parachute, there is the sensation that the very instability provides the possibility of rising up like the fabric. And besides—there are hands to hold if they lose their balance—or if you do! And so can you rise when you allow yourself to accept change and adapt to all the new possibility of growth that it opens up!

Current Issues in the Field Part 2—Dance Lessons

Okay, sure—things are gonna change, and this change is going to affect the lives of the children and families you work with, and affect you, professionally and personally. So—you’re sold, in theory, that to do the best by each one of those children, you’re just going to have to do some fancy footwork, embrace the change, and think through how to best adapt to it.

But…how? Before we talk about the kind of change that’s about rethinking your program on a broad level, let’s talk about those times we face when change happens in the spur of the moment, and impacts the lives of the children in your program—those times when your job becomes helping children process their feelings and adapt to change. Sometimes this is a really big deal, like a natural disaster. Sometimes it’s something smaller like the personal story I share below…something small, cuddly, and very important to the children.

Learning the Steps: How do I help children respond to change?

I have a sad story to share. For many years, I was the lead teacher in a classroom in which we had a pet rabbit named Flopsy. Flopsy was litter-trained and so our licensing specialist allowed us to let him hop freely around the classroom. Flopsy was very social, and liked to interact with children. He liked to be held and petted and was also playful, suddenly zooming around the classroom, hopping over toys and nudging children. Flopsy was a big part of our community and of children’s experience in our classroom.

One day, I arrived at school to be told by my distraught director that Flopsy had died in the night and she had removed his body. I had about 15 minutes before children would be arriving, and I had to figure out how to address Flopsy’s loss.

I took a few minutes to collect myself, and considered the following questions:

Yes, absolutely. The children would notice immediately that Flopsy was missing and would comment on it. It was important that I not evade their questions.

Flopsy had died. His body had stopped working. His brain had stopped working. He would not ever come back to life. We would never see Flopsy again. I wrote these sentences on a sticky note. They were short but utterly important.

I would give children the opportunity to share their feelings, and talk about my own feelings. I would read children’s books that would express feelings they might not have words for yet. I would pay extra attention to children reaching out to me and offer opportunities to affirm children’s responses by writing them down.

Human beings encounter death. Children lose pets, grandparents, and sometimes parents or siblings. I wanted these children to experience death in a way that would give them a template when they experienced more intense loss. I wanted them to know it’s okay to be sad, and that the sadness grows less acute over time. That it’s okay to feel angry or scared, and that these feelings, too, though they might be really big, will become less immediate. And that it’s okay to feel happy as you remember the one you lost.

I knew it was important not to give children mistaken impressions about death. I was careful not to compare it to sleep, because I didn’t want them to think that maybe Flopsy would wake up again. I also didn’t want them to fear that when mama fell asleep it was the same thing as death. I also wanted to be factual but leave room for families to share their religious beliefs with their children.

I didn’t have time to do research. But I mentally gathered up some wisdom from a training I’d been to, where the trainer talked about how important it is that we don’t shy away from addressing death with children. Her words gave me courage. I also gathered up some children’s books about pet death from our library.

The first thing I did was text my husband. I was really sad. I had cared for this bunny for years and I loved him too. I didn’t have time for a phone call, but that text was an important way for me to acknowledge my own feelings of grief.

Then I talked to the other teachers. I asked for their quick advice, and shared my plan, since the news would travel to other classrooms as well.

During my prep time that day, I wrote a letter to families, letting them know Flopsy had died and some basic information about how we had spoken to children about it, some resources about talking to children about death, and some titles of books about the death of pets. I knew that news of Flopsy’s death would be carried home to many families, and that parents might want to share their own belief systems about death. I also knew many parents were uncomfortable discussing death with young children and that it might be helpful to see the way we had done so.

I had curriculum planned for that day which I partially scrapped. At our first gathering time I shared the news with the whole group: I shared my sticky note of information about death. I told the children I was sad. I asked if they had questions and I answered them honestly. I listened when they shared their own feelings. I also told them I had happy memories of FLopsy and we talked about our memories.

During the course of the day, and the next few days, I gave the children invitations (but not assignments) to reflect on Flopsy and their feelings. I sat on the floor with a notebook and the invitation for children to write a “story” about Flopsy. Almost every child wanted their words recorded. Responses ranged from “Goodbye bunny” to imagined stories about Flopsy’s adventures, to a description of feelings of sadness and loss. Writing down these words helped acknowledge the children’s feelings. Some of them hung their stories on the wall, and some asked them to be read aloud, or shared them themselves, at circle time.

I also made sure there were plenty of other opportunities in the classroom for children who didn’t want to engage in these ways, or who didn’t need to.

We read “Saying Goodbye to Lulu” and “The Tenth Good Thing About Barney” in small groups; and while these books were a little bit above the developmental level of some children in the class, many children wanted to hear and discuss the books. When I became teary reading them, I didn’t try to hide it, but just said “I’m feeling sad, and it makes me cry a little bit. Everyone cries sometimes.”

This would be a good set of steps to address an event like a hurricane, wildfires, or an earthquake as well. First and foremost of course, make sure your children are safe and have their physical needs met! Remember your role as educator and caretaker; address their emotional needs, consider what you hope they will learn, gather the resources and your team, and make decisions that affirm the dignity of each child in your care.

• Does the issue affect children’s lived experiences? 
• How much and what kind of information is appropriate for their age?
• How can I best affirm their emotions?
• What do I hope they will learn?
• Could I accidentally be doing harm through my response?
• Which resources do I need and can I gather in a timely manner?
• How do I gather my team?
• How can I involve families?
• Now, I create and enact my plan…

Did your plan look any different for having used these questions? And did the process of making decisions as a leader look or feel different? How so?

You might not always walk yourself through a set of questions–but using an intentional tool is like counting out dance steps—there’s a lot of thinking it through at first, and maybe forgetting a step, and stumbling, and so forth. And then…somehow, you just know how to dance. And then you can learn to improvise. In other words, it is through practice that you will become adept at and confident in responding to change, and learn to move with grace on the shifting carpet of life.

Feeling the Rhythm: How do I help myself respond to change

—and grow through it.

Now, let’s address what it might look like to respond to a different kind of change, the kind in which you learn something new and realize you need to make some changes in who you are as an educator. This is hard, but there are steps you can take to make sure you keep moving forward:

• Work to understand your own feelings. Write about them. Talk them through with your teams—personal and/or professional.
• Take a look in the mirror, strive to see where you are at, and then be kind to yourself!
• Gather your tools! Get out that dog eared copy of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, and look for other tools that are relevant to your situation. Root yourself in the values of early childhood care and education.
• Examine your own practices in light of this change.
• Examine the policies, structures, or systems that affect your program in light of this change.
• Ask yourself, where could change happen? Remember your spheres of influence.
• Who can you collaborate with? Who is on your team?
• How can you make sure the people being affected by this change help inform your response? Sometimes people use the phrase “Nothing for us without us” to help remember that we don’t want to make decisions that affect a group of people (even if we think we’re helping) without learning more from individuals in that group about what real support looks like).
• Make a plan, including a big vision and small steps, and start taking those small steps. Remember that when you are ready to bring others in, they will need to go through some of this process too, and you may need to be on their team as they look for a safe sounding board to explore their discomfort or fear.
• Realize that you are a courageous advocate for children. Give yourself a hug!

• Work to understand your own feelings. Write about them. Talk them through with your teams—personal and/or professional. 

This might be a good time to freewrite about your feelings—just put your pencil to paper and start writing. Maybe you feel guilty because you’re afraid that too many children of color have been asked to leave your program. Maybe you feel angry about the injustice. Maybe you feel scared that this topic is politicized and people aren’t going to want to hear about it. Maybe you feel scared to even face the idea that bias could have affected children while in your care. All these feelings are okay! Maybe you talk to your partner or your friends about your fears before you’re ready to get started even thinking about taking action.

• Take a look in the mirror, strive to see where you are at, and then be kind to yourself! Tell that person looking back at you: “I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better.”

Yep. You love children and you did what you believed was best for the children in your program. Maybe now you can do even better by them! You are being really really brave by investigating!

• Gather your tools! Get out that dog-eared copy of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, and look for other tools that are relevant to your situation.

Okay! This would be an excellent time to bring out the equity lens and your other tools. Read them over. Use them.

Do your practices affirm the dignity of every child and family? Ask yourself these hard questions while focusing on, in this case, how you look at behavior of children of color. Do the choices you make affirm the dignity of each unique child? Use your tools—you can pull out the equity lens here! Are you acknowledging the home realities of each child when you are having conversations that are meant to build social-emotional skills? Are you considering the needs of each child during difficult transitions? Do you provide alternative ways for children to engage if they have difficulty sitting in circle times?

And…Do your policies and structures affirm the dignity of every child and family? Use those tools! Look at your behavioral guidance policies—are you expecting children to come into your program with certain skills that may not be valued by certain cultures? What about your policies on sending children home or asking a family to leave your program? Could these policies be unfair to certain groups? In fact—given that you now know how extremely impactful expulsion is for preschoolers, could you take it off the table entirely?

Let’s say you’re a teacher, and you can look back and see that over the years you’ve been at your center, a disproportionately high number of children of color have been excluded from the program. Your director makes policy decisions—can you bring this information to him or her? Could you talk to your coworkers about how to bring it up? Maybe your sphere of influence could get even wider—could you share this information with other early educators in your community? Maybe even write a letter to your local representatives!

• Who can you collaborate with? Who is on your team? 

Maybe other educators? Maybe parents? Maybe your director? Maybe an old teacher of your own? Can you bring this up at a staff meeting? Or in informal conversations?

• How can you make sure the people being affected by this change help inform your response?

Let’s say your director is convinced that your policies need to change in light of this new information. You want to make sure that parent voice—and especially that of parents of color—is heard! You could suggest a parent meeting on the topic; or maybe do “listening sessions” with parents of color, where you ask them open-ended questions and listen and record their responses—without adding much of your own response; maybe you could invite parents to be part of a group who looks over and works on the policies. This can feel a little scary to people in charge (see decentered leadership?)

Maybe this plan is made along with your director and includes those parent meetings, and a timeline for having revised policies, and some training for the staff. Or—let’s back it up—maybe you’re not quite to that point yet, and your plan is how you are going to approach your director, especially since they might feel criticized. Then your plan might be sharing information, communicating enthusiasm about moving forward and making positive change, and clearly stating your thoughts on where change is needed! (Also some chocolate to reward yourself for being a courageous advocate for every child.)

And, as I may have mentioned, some chocolate. You are a leader and an advocate, and a person whose action mirrors their values. You are worth admiring!

Maybe you haven’t had your mind blown with new information lately, but I’ll bet there’s something you’ve thought about that you haven’t quite acted on yet…maybe it’s about individualizing lesson plans for children with differing abilities. Maybe it’s about addressing diversity of gender in the classroom. Maybe it’s about celebrating linguistic diversity, inviting children and parents to share their home languages in the classroom, and finding authentic ways to include print in these languages.

Whatever it is—we all have room to grow.

Make a Plan!

Dancing Your Dance: Rocking Leadership in Times of Change

There will never be a time when we as educators are not having to examine and respond to “Current Issues in the Field.” Working with children means working with children in a dynamic and ever-evolving landscape of community, knowledge, and personal experience. It’s really cool that we get to do this, walk beside small human beings as they learn to traverse the big wacky world with all its potholes…and it means we get to keep getting better and better at circling around, leaping over, and, yep, dancing around or even through those very potholes.

In conclusion, all dancers feel unsteady sometimes. All dancers bruise their knees along the way. All educators make mistakes and experience discomfort.  All dancers wonder if this dance just isn’t for them.  All dancers think that maybe this one is just too hard and want to quit sometimes. All educators second guess their career choices. But all dancers also discover their own innate grace and their inborn ability to both learn and to change; our very muscles are made to stretch, our cells replace themselves, and we quite simply cannot stand still. All educators have the capacity to grow into compassionate, courageous leaders!

Your heart, your brain, and your antsy feet have led you to become a professional in early childhood care and education, and they will all demand that you jump into the uncertainty of leadership in times of change, and learn to dance for the sake of the children in your care. This, truly, is your call to action, and your pressing invitation to join the dance!

Brown, B. (2018).  Dare to lead . Vermilion.

Broughton, A., Castro, D. and Chen, J.  (2020).  Three International Perspectives on Culturally Embraced Pedagogical Approaches to Early Teaching and Learning.  [Conference presentation].  NAEYC Annual Conference.

Crum, T.  (1987).  The Magic of Conflict: Turning a Life of Work into a Work of Art.  Touchstone.

Meek, S. and Gilliam, W. (2016).  Expulsion and Suspension in Early Education as Matters of Social Justice and Health Equity.  Perspectives: Expert Voices in Health & Health Care.

Scott, K., Looby, A., Hipp, J. and Frost, N. (2017).  “Applying an Equity Lens to the Child Care Setting.”  The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45 (S1), 77-81.

Online Resources for Current Issues in the Field

Resources for opening yourself to personal growth, change, and courageous leadership:

• Brown, Brenee. Daring Classrooms. https://brenebrown.com/daringclassrooms
• Chang, R. (March 25, 2019).  What Growth Mindset Means for Kids [Video] .  TED Conferences.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66yaYmUNOx4

Resources for Thinking About Responding to Current Issues in Education

• Flanagan, N. (July 31, 2020).  How School Should Respond to Covid-19 [Video] .  TED Conferences.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSkUHHH4nb8
• Harris, N.B.. (February 217, 015). How Childhood Trauma Affects Health Across a Lifetime [Video] .  TED Conferences.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ovIJ3dsNk
• Simmons, D. (August 28, 2020). 6 Ways to be an Anti Racist Educator [Video] . Edutopia.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3Lfk751cg&t=3s

Leadership in Early Care and Education Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Tammy Marino; Dr. Maidie Rosengarden; Dr. Sally Gunyon; and Taya Noland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Hirsh Health Sciences
• Webster Veterinary
• Tisch Library/ SMFA Library/ Lilly Library

Early Childhood Curriculum

• Topics In Early Childhood Education
• Get Started
• Background Sources
• Arts: Music and Movement
• English Language Arts and Literacy
• Technology and Engineering
• Professional Organizations

Starting Points for Various Topics

Anti-Bias Education       Assessment      Classroom Management     Dual Language Education

Early Childhood Education Policy        Educational Psychology      Program Evaluation and Standards

Special Education

Anti-bias education.

Classroom management and child guidance

Dual Language Education

Early Childhood Education Policy

Educational Psychology

Program Evaluation and Standards

Social Sciences Librarian

• << Previous: Technology and Engineering
• Next: Professional Organizations >>
• Last Updated: Jun 25, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/earlychildhood

176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples

📝 childhood education research papers examples, 🎓 simple research topics about childhood education, 👍 good childhood education essay topics to write about, ⭐ interesting topics to write about childhood education, 🏆 best childhood education essay titles, ❓ childhood education research questions.

• Learning Fractions Through Gameplay Researchers of the game-based learning offer a framework that evaluates the games’ support of formal studies, focusing on inquiry, communication, construction, and expression.
• Child Development and Education: Physical Exercise Human development refers to the process of growing to maturity. A child needs to have good physical activities, in order to develop to a healthy adult.
• Environment in Early Childhood Education The paper reviews the history of early education and argues that the context and environment is the key strategy applied to the modern education of young children.
• Curricular Issues in Early Childhood Education In the unit, “Curricular Issues,” Paciorek asserts that teachers have a role to inspire, encourage and influence children in the learning process.
• Early Childhood Education Standards and Practices The purpose of developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education is to address the issues of individual ways of children's development.
• Child Advocacy in Education Children constitute some of the most vulnerable groups in society. The main aim of this paper is to address child advocacy in relation to education issues that concern children.
• Early Childhood Education: Studies Review Studies on early childhood education have been conducted in various countries. This paper reviews three studies that were conducted in Germany, Netherlands and the USA.
• Early Childhood Profession in Australia This report analyses the state of early childhood profession in Australia. Numerous features characterise early childhood profession.
• Philosophy of Children Education A teacher to be aware of diverse learning styles to establish a style of learning for every learner and devise appropriate instructional strategies.
• Educational Leadership for Children's Needs The present issues in early childhood education management and leadership prove that educational leaders need to pay more attention to the quality of leadership.
• Intervention for Young Children with Learning Disabilities This paper discusses strategies that teachers could use to educate children with learning disabilities and how the Response to Intervention could support their educational outcomes.
• Maria Montessori and Her Three Education Theories Maria Montessori transformed early childhood education through her theories of early childhood education. Scholars consider Montessori to be among the earliest educators.
• Quality Early Childhood Program Comprehensive services are the component that improves the care given to the children within the educational facility.
• Early Childhood Education: Leadership and Management Being a teacher means taking on a number of diverse roles. A teacher is a leader who should have the ability to manage children's talents and capabilities.
• Early Childhood Political and Pedagogical Landscape In New Zealand the government fails to hire qualified teachers in pre-school centres and child minding facilities. This condition can affect the quality of education for children.
• Extracurricular Activities for the Middle Childhood Ages Extracurricular activities are essential for children aged 6-10 as they begin to connect more with society, make friends, and enjoy being a part of a group.
• The Educational Process in Early Childhood The use of a method including all types of indicators will signify the precise results of the conducted study and contribute to the development of educational strategies.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Early Childhood Education One of the core ideas of ethics in early childhood education is that both a child's and a family's interests are essential in children's development.
• Maria Montessori: Education as an Aid to Life In the current essay, the question of how education is an aid to life, according to Maria Montessori, is addressed.
• The Process of Children’s Education: Parents’ Participation The purpose of this study is to reveal the benefits and disadvantages of the parent’s participation in the process of children’s education.
• Literacy Development for Preschoolers The article focuses on the importance of early literacy development in preschoolers and methods that will help teachers in this.
• Montessori Method: Human Tendencies and Inner Needs The Montessori method relies on the intrinsic desire to learn that can be encouraged in a purposefully built environment without interference from adults.
• The Child Assessment Cycle in Education The purpose of this paper is to describe the child assessment cycle and related teacher responsibilities and explain how the child assessment cycle benefits students.
• Early Childhood Education Children growing in proper care and correct guidance in their childhood education are more successful in their interactions with others, popular and more at ease in life.
• The Curriculum at the Child Education Center The curriculum at the Child Education Center is both academic and co-curriculum based and this means that we value both the academic performance and talents of the children.
• Censorship in Children’s Educational Materials It can be suggested that school materials need to be censored to some extent, and this point of view is going to be analyzed further.
• Montessori Method in the Modern Times The Montessori method of education offers an alternative to traditional instructional principles, these days it is returning to the modern scientific scope.
• Quality Early Childhood Education Program The educators, supervisors and caregivers involved into work with children are to be properly trained and master the practice of teaching including all techniques and methods.
• Adult Education in the United States This paper uses the case of the United States to address the increasing desires and demands of adult education in contemporary times.
• Importance of Conducting Effective Child Sex Education This essay will discuss the significance of conducting effective child sex education, and it will also discuss factors that have hampered the effectiveness of child sex education.
• Adolescents and Disengagement from Education One out of ten teenagers between sixteen and eighteen years old is either disengaged in education, professional training, or even employment.
• The United Arab Emirates Early Education Policy The UAE Early Education Policy will help to update the educational system so that students could acquire the necessary skills in a more efficient manner.
• Current Issues in Primary Education. Need for a “Guardian” Through media outlets, such as the “Guardian” and the “Times”, commentators can voice their criticisms of design for the future of education in the United Kingdom.
• Aspects of the Child’s Development and Education The paper states that parental involvement can be understood as the family’s participation in different aspects of their child’s development and education.
• Play-Based Philosophy for Early Childhood Education Play-based educational programs use games as a context for learning, where preschoolers can explore, discover, solve problems, and experiment in playful and imaginative ways.
• Overcoming Stereotypes in Early Childhood Education Overcoming stereotypes in early childhood education is essential for raising children who would recognize all people around them as equals and treat them with respect.
• The Meaning of Early Childhood Educator Encouraging early childhood development is vital for assisting a child in gaining the knowledge and skills appropriate for their age at a later stage of their life.
• Communication with Children within Education Communication and interaction with all stakeholders are the keys to success in any field of activity. This principle also applies to education, including the teaching of children.
• Early Childhood Educator: Pedagogical Mission and Approach An early childhood educator is an important figure in a child’s life. Aside from providing knowledge, one should facilitate child's socialization and transmit universal values.
• Early Education in California The outcome of the assessment has a direct influence on the development of programs, their financing, and overall continuation.
• Children with Disabilities: Educational Programs Children with disabilities need a special approach to learning that requires equipped classes, teachers who will take into account the physical characteristics of the disabled.
• The Concept Map of Childhood Education This paper aims to construct a concept map that provides an overview of the most important theories and approaches in the field of early childhood education.
• Ideal Educational Experience: The Role of Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes Primary school is an important stage in the life of every child. In primary school, children begin to learn more consciously to communicate with each other.
• Examination of Major Effects of Poverty on Children's Education Quality education is a necessary part of a growing individual’s life, allowing them to obtain access to unique possibilities and secure a successful path.
• The Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Education is an internationally recognized research and professional institute for children's development.
• Leadership in the Context of Early Childhood Education The teacher played a leadership role in motivating and coordinating a team of colleagues, acquiring information about the community, and researching children's educational needs.
• Assessments in Early Childhood Education This essay provides insight into various assessments and methods required to focus on the whole child. The classroom assessments should be organized.
• Potential Setting Modifications for Children Education The first setting modification that can be applied is the introduction of visual aids for some tasks. The second would be to introduce equipment aids, most importantly a walker.
• Enhancing Vocabulary in Childhood: Article Summary This summary is based on the literature review article “Closing the Vocabulary Gap? A Review of Research on Early Childhood Vocabulary Practices” by Christ and Wang.
• Childhood Education: The Montessori Approach and the Reggio Emilia Theory This research paper examines the problem of childhood education, using the Montessori approach and the Reggio Emilia theory.
• Special Education for Children with Mental Disorders Problems of learning and school adaptation of children and adolescents with mental disorders are most urgent in modern social psychiatry.
• The Osmo Genius Starter Kit: Turkish Early Childhood Education Curriculum The Osmo Genius starter kit is a learning system that integrates physical play with the digital world. This tool is manufactured for elementary school-aged children.
• Family Participation in a Child’s Education This paper claims that family participation has positive influences on children’s learning, including boosting academic achievement and better attendance rates.
• Personal Code of Ethics for Early Childhood Educator A code of ethics is important for people not only as individuals but as professionals as well. It represents moral, religious, and cultural upbringing.
• Planning and Teaching in a Preschool Setting The teacher's job is to plan learning activities that begin with the development of learning objectives and continue through implementation and evaluation in a preschool setting.
• Aspects of Childhood Learning The paper states that playful learning activities can help children and teachers exceed standards since they are properly engaged in activities.
• Reggio Emilia’s Approaches to Children’s Education The task of educating infants and toddlers is a complex initiative that requires adopting appropriate frameworks for better results.
• Diversity in Early Childhood Education The increasing diversity in early childhood education settings requires teachers to become competent in inclusive teaching practice, and challenge biases to promote social justice.
• Creating a Personal Philosophy of Early Childhood Education The role of a preschool teacher is to provide intellectual and moral development and encouragement of children’s ideas to reveal potential talents and abilities.
• Early Child Education: Developing Effective Learning Methods The paper describes how to develop strong relationships with young learners. It shows how teachers should develop relationships through shared experiences.
• The Pedagogical Technique of Montessori This essay is a theoretical synthesis of the critical ideas of Maria Montessori's pedagogical practice and the identification of her philosophy.
• Stem Education by Mathematics Teachers in Saudi Primary Schools The paper aims to outline the rationale for assessing STEM in Saudi primary education with a specific focus on mathematics teachers.
• Preschool Education in China and Japan Preschool education in China serves several purposes, from child care to educational preparation. Meanwhile, the Japanese preschool system is more directed toward socialization.
• Diversity in Early Childhood School Setting In today's multicultural society, classrooms all over the globe are becoming diverse. This means that schools now admit increased numbers of children from diverse cultures.
• Early Childhood Educators' Influence on Society This paper is a reflection on Early Childhood educators regarding their societal role, standing, and their influence in society.
• Childhood Education and Learning Theory One of the primary purposes that teachers should pursue is to provide the best possible education to one’s students.
• Educating the Whole Child Approach Description Educating the Whole Child is a relatively new approach to education that centers on the education environment and its influence on children's overall development.
• History of Inclusion in Early Childhood Education Creating schools with special needs was the first step to their inclusion into society, followed by integration: allowing them to visit a regular school.
• Childhood Practices and Allowances The purpose of childhood practice is to provide a foundation for kids' cognitive and social growth that will continue throughout their lives.
• Dialogue and Its Importance in Children’s Education The most important matter in children’s education is dialogue. Furthermore, communication should be done in a respectful manner.
• Early Children’s Development and Learning: Philosophy Statement This paper contains a brief description of the philosophy statement regarding early children’s development and learning.
• The College of Early Childhood Educators The importance of the early childhood educator's involvement in the well-being, learning, and development of children cannot be overstated.
• Childhood Education Programs and Improvements to Them This paper reviews two articles that examine the data about childhood education programs and suggest improvements to schools.
• Development of the Pedagogical Leadership An important aspect of pedagogical leadership is the factor of teacher interaction with the main participants of the educational process.
• Stress in Early Childhood Education Early childhood education is crucial to the child's mental development, and the movie "No Small Matter" reveals curious insights into the topic.
• Developing Emergent Literacy in Children Emergent literacy is the basis for the further development of abilities; therefore, it should be given proper attention.
• Characteristics of Effective Early Childhood Teachers “Twelve Characteristics of Effective Early Childhood Teachers” explains the phenomenological attributes of each quality, ranging from passion to a sense of humor.
• Discussing Child Learning Strategies The article analyzes two videos reviewed are the "Visually Impaired" and "Understanding Hearing Impairments" clips.
• Praise and Encouragement in Early Childhood Education The article discusses approaching the children in school-based activities in class, which includes giving credit where it deserves by improving a child's potential.
• Early Childhood Education in India Today's preschool education system in India is designed so that parents can rest assured of their children who have been trained in such groups.
• Quality Physical Education and Obesity in US Children For the public and often the students themselves, physical education in schools is rarely taken seriously, viewed as largely a ‘filler’ subject to meet government requirements.
• Comparison of the Two Early Childhood Educational Institutions in Hong Kong This paper examines the educational and administrative management aspects of two kindergartens in Hong Kong: HKYWCA Athena and The Salvation Army Shui Chuen O Kindergarten.
• Importance of Early Childhood Study Early childhood is a great determiner of a person's future character and behavior, as children learn a lot because they can easily understand each other through games.
• Research in the Field of Childhood Literacy This paper contains an annotated bibliography of the two articles devoted to the topics of childhood literacy and education.
• Children's Skills Development and Education Decent behavior, operational interaction with others, and articulating individual needs are essential constituents of children's skills.
• Teaching Strategies for Middle Childhood Development Stages Tutors have the most significant part to play in the middle childhood development stage. They should choose and practice relevant strategies.
• Best Practices in Early Childhood Education This paper discusses best practices in the field of early childhood education, which are based on developmentally appropriate practice (DAP).
• “The Kindergarten Program”: Visible Learning in Early Childhood Education Visible learning is particularly significant since children learn from experience and should be exposed to real-life situations.
• How Fun and Playing Helps Kids Learn The topic of childhood development via playing will be examined in depth in this study, which will cover various aspects of the topic.
• Early Childhood Education Programs Comparison Relying on the two videos on Early Childhood Education Programs, this paper compares various programs that are critical for the proper development of children.
• Early Childhood Education: Pedagogical Skills Understanding each child as a unique individual with their own psychological characteristics and structure of thinking seems to be a necessary competence of any children's teacher.
• Stages of Learning to Spell in Children Learning conventional spelling goes beyond the dry memorization of thousands of words, it is best attained by pragmatic activities.
• Family-Centered Programs in Early Childhood Classroom Family-centered programs for early childhood education have become popular across the United States due to their inherent benefits.
• Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework Community-level indigenous governments have participated in framework development, resulting in the identification of service gaps these communities find important.
• Montessori Education System, Its History, Pros and Cons For decades, the Montessori method has revolutionized education within various institutions in more than one hundred countries worldwide.
• Educational Practices for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder This paper aims to analyze Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and find ways to change educational practices to meet the needs of students with ADHD.
• K-12 Education Change in Educating Young People During the COVID-19 Pandemic This paper is an annotated bibliography of the articles devoted to the K-12 education change in light of the experience of educating young people during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Learning in Special Education Needs School This paper will explore four important areas of development in SEN and the importance of inclusion, diversity, and accessibility in SEN schools.
• Role of Adults and Educators in the Education Process Adults and educators play a central role in the education process. They direct the process of inquiry and the desire to learn everything around children.
• The Montessori Method and Its Benefits The Montessori Method of education is an influential teaching method to ensure that students are equipped with the best practical skills in the learning process.
• Integrating Children Into Society: The Role of Education As a social institution, the school is responsible for integrating children into society. Higher education is also very important for a person to shape their role in society.
• The Rationale for Completion of a Bachelor’s Degree in Education Studies "Educational Studies" is a course designed to earn a non-license teaching degree while majoring and minoring in education.
• Interview: Physical and Cognitive Development in Middle-Late Childhood The teacher was willing to provide additional insights about physical, socioemotional, and cognitive development during middle to late childhood.
• Formal Education and Child Benchmarks This paper looks to dissect a child's cognitive, behavioral, and relational benchmarks at 18 years and relate them to the story of Success academy.
• Language Rationale: Montessori Education Curriculum An analysis of the language rationale in the Montessori education curriculum shows that learning occurs through spoken language, writing, and reading.
• Parental Engagement into Children’s Education Parental engagement in children’s studies has a positive impact on the children’s academic achievements and contributes to higher results in school.
• An Inquiry Into Form and Its Importance in Early Childhood Education The creative process uses various tools to help students better understand the world around them and how they perceive it.
• Early Childhood Education Aspects Early childhood is considered the most crucial time of child development because it is a period of fast physical and mental development.
• The Outdoor Learning Benefits and Effectiveness The work aims to show that outdoor learning, when used correctly, has great potential towards improving the children's educational experience as a whole.
• Outdoor Learning Influence on Young Children Outdoor learning and the incorporation of more open approaches to early education are highly beneficial to the development of young children.
• Early Childhood Education: Teaching Methods Early childhood educators rely on different teaching methods and solutions to delivering learning instructions, some of which might not produce the best results.
• Student Behaviour in Early Childhood Settings In the development of children, problems often occur in the form of deviations from generally accepted social age expectations.
• No Homework Policy in Primary Schools of Abu Dhabi In the UAE, debates regarding the ban on homework are emerging after a ministry decision to scrap homework at several public schools in Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
• Twenty-First Century Childhood Education Personal Philosophy
• Early Childhood Education: Impact on Cognitive and Social Development
• Past Origins and Philosophical Concepts of Childhood Education
• Newzealand Childhood Education Services
• Childhood Education and Parental Involvement Enhancement
• Autonomy Within the Childhood Education Field
• Analysing the Popular Problems in Child Education
• Factors That Influence Childhood Education Programs
• High-Quality Program for Childhood Education
• Proper Childhood Education and Racism
• Childhood Education for Children From Low Income
• Health, Safety, and Nutrition in Childhood Education
• Sex Roles and Gender Bias in Childhood Education
• Childhood Education and Multicultural Literature
• Early Childhood Education: Improving Listening Skills
• Childhood Education: Vision, Mission, and Philosophy
• Early Childhood Education, Literacy Development
• Childhood Education: Impact on Cognitive and Social Development
• Teacher: Childhood Education and Family Involvement
• Childhood Education and Development Act of 1989
• Classroom Management for Childhood Education
• Nursing and Childhood Education
• Childhood Education and Special Education
• Social Work and Childhood Education
• Childhood Education, Economic Development, and the Business Community
• Integrating Art Into Childhood Education
• Social Equity and Childhood Education
• Workplace, Childcare and Childhood Education
• Childhood Education, Delinquency, and Life
• Learning Through Structured Play During Childhood Education
• Playful Learning and Pedagogies Within Childhood Education
• Childhood Education and Social Inequalities
• Brain Development and Childhood Education
• China Child Development: Childhood Education in Yunnan
• Good Communication Skills Are Essential for Childhood Education
• Early Childhood Education: Development of Manipulative Skills
• Childhood Education and Developmental Delays
• Leadership and Administration in Child Education
• Comprehensive Proposal for Development of a Childhood Education
• What Are the Benefits Of Childhood Education?
• How Does Childhood Education Set the Stage for the Future of Academic Education?
• What Are the Basic Concepts of Child Education?
• What Are the Current Issues and Trends in Child Education Assessment?
• How the Prevailing National Political Situation Is Affecting Childhood Education?
• What Are the Children’s Education and Curriculum Standards?
• How Has Children’s Education Changed in the Past and the Present?
• What Is the Relationship Between the Economy and Children’s Education?
• What Are the Popular Technologies in Children’s Education?
• What Is the Most Popular Childhood Education Curriculum?
• Does the Turkish Childhood Education Program Is Cultural?
• What Is the Philosophy of Child Education?
• How To Improve Boys’ Achievement in Children’s Education?
• What Is the Importance of Music and Movement in Children’s Education?
• Education for Sustainability Within Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand?
• What Is the Difference Between Multicultural Education and Children’s Education?
• Famous Child Education Theorists and What Are Their Theories?
• Fending off Fadeout: How Do We Sustain the Gains of Childhood Education?
• Why Is Childhood Education Important?
• What Are the Indicators of Education and Child Care?
• How Does the Demographic Fluctuation Affect Children’s Education in Iran?
• Who Bears the Cost of Childhood Education and How Does It Affect Enrolment?
• What Are the Education Programs for Children and Youth?

Cite this page

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

ChalkyPapers. (2024, May 25). 176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples. https://chalkypapers.com/topics/childhood-education-research-topics/

"176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples." ChalkyPapers , 25 May 2024, chalkypapers.com/topics/childhood-education-research-topics/.

ChalkyPapers . (2024) '176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples'. 25 May.

ChalkyPapers . 2024. "176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples." May 25, 2024. https://chalkypapers.com/topics/childhood-education-research-topics/.

1. ChalkyPapers . "176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples." May 25, 2024. https://chalkypapers.com/topics/childhood-education-research-topics/.

Bibliography

ChalkyPapers . "176 Childhood Education Research Topics & Essay Examples." May 25, 2024. https://chalkypapers.com/topics/childhood-education-research-topics/.

Early childhood learning trajectories

The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)’s Early Childhood Learning Trajectories describe how children learn and develop in these key domains:

• Executive functions
• Social and emotional learning
• Mathematical thinking
• Language and communication
• Physical development.

While each learning trajectory describes children’s progress in a single domain, they’re designed to be used in interconnected ways. A single experience within an early childhood program may support progress in multiple domains at the same time. Progress in one domain may depend on progress in another.

Teachers and educators can use the learning trajectories in a variety of ways to strengthen their curriculum and inform their pedagogical decision-making, in line with the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF V2.0) or other approved learning frameworks used in their service. The learning trajectories also support the National Quality Standard , especially Standard 1.3: Assessment and planning. They can also help ECEC services lift quality and implement Quality Improvement Plans.

• Assessment & measurement
• Professional learning
• Cognitive science
• Introduction to Early Childhood Learning Trajectories
• Early childhood learning trajectories: The evidence base
• Early childhood learning trajectories: Reflection activity
• Early childhood learning trajectories: User guide

Australia's national education evidence body

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

How to Do Action Research in Your Classroom

You are here

This article is available as a pdf. please see the link on the right..

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

5 facts about student loans

Americans owe about $1.6 trillion in student loans as of June 2024 – 42% more than what they owed a decade earlier. The increase has come as greater shares of young U.S. adults  go to college and as the cost of higher education increases.

Here are five facts about student loans in America based on a Pew Research Center analysis of data from several sources, including the Federal Reserve Board’s 2023 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand how many Americans have outstanding student loan debt and how this debt is associated with their economic well-being.

In this analysis, adults with student loan debt include those whose student loans are temporarily on hold or in forbearance. The analysis does not include debt incurred through credit cards or other types of loans used for education.

The analysis is mostly based on the Federal Reserve’s 2023 Survey of Household and Economic Decisionmaking (SHED). Conducted annually since 2013, the SHED measures U.S. adults overall financial well-being and difficulties meeting expenses. It also regularly includes a battery of questions on debts incurred for education, education decisions, and an assessment of the value of higher education. The 2023 SHED had 11,400 respondents, weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult civilian noninstitutionalized population.

One-in-four U.S. adults under 40 have student loan debt. This share drops to 14% among those ages 40 to 49 and to just 4% among those 50 and older.

Of course, not all Americans attend or graduate from college, so student loan debt is more common among the subset of people who have done so. Among adults under 40 who have at least a four-year college degree, for example, 36% have outstanding student loan debt.

Age differences reflect, in part, the fact that older adults have had more time to repay their loans. Still, other research has found that young adults are also more likely now than in the past to take out loans to pay for their education. In the 2018-2019 academic year, 28% of undergraduate students took out federal student loans. That’s up from 23% in 2001-2002, according to data from College Board – a nonprofit organization perhaps best known for its standardized admissions tests (like the SAT) that also documents trends in higher education.

The amount of student loan debt that Americans owe varies widely by their education level. Overall, the median borrower with outstanding student debt owed between $20,000 and $24,999 in 2023.

• Among borrowers who attended some college but don’t have a bachelor’s degree, the median owed was between $10,000 and $14,999 in 2023.
• The typical bachelor’s degree holder who borrowed owed between $20,000 and $24,999.
• Among borrowers with a postgraduate degree the median owed was between $40,000 and $49,999.

Looking at the same data another way, a quarter of borrowers without a bachelor’s degree owed at least $25,000 in 2023. About half of borrowers with a bachelor’s degree (49%) and an even higher share of those with a postgraduate education (71%) owed at least that much.

Adults with a postgraduate degree are especially likely to have a large amount of student loan debt. About a quarter of these advanced degree holders who borrowed (26%) owed $100,000 or more in 2023, compared with 9% of all borrowers. Overall, only 1% of all U.S. adults owed at least $100,000.

Young college graduates with student loans are more likely than those without this kind of debt to say they struggle financially. A quarter of college graduates ages 25 to 39 with loans say they are either finding it difficult to get by financially or are just getting by , compared with 9% of those without loans. And while only 29% of young college graduates with outstanding student loans say they are living comfortably, 53% of those without loans say the same.

Young college graduates with student loans still tend to have higher household incomes than their counterparts who haven’t completed college. For many young adults, student loans are a way to make an otherwise unattainable education a reality. Although these students have to borrow money to attend college, the investment might make sense if it leads to higher earnings later in life.

College graduates ages 25 to 39 who have student loan debt have higher household incomes than non-college graduates in the same age group (regardless of student loan status). But their household incomes are lower than those of young college graduates who don’t have student loan debt.

Around half of young college graduates with student loans (48%) have household incomes of at least $100,000. That compares with just 14% of non-college graduates. But among college graduates without student loan debt, 64% have household incomes of $100,000 or more.

Household income includes an individual’s income and the income of any spouse or partner living with them. So these differences may at least partly reflect the fact that college graduates are more likely to be married.

Young college graduates with student loan debt are more likely than those without debt to say their education wasn’t worth the cost . About a third (35%) of those ages 25 to 39 who have at least a bachelor’s degree and outstanding student loan debt say the benefits of their degree weren’t worth the lifetime financial costs. By comparison, 16% of young college graduates without outstanding student loans say the same.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Aug. 13, 2019.

• Age & Generations
• Higher Education
• Student Loans

Richard Fry is a senior researcher focusing on economics and education at Pew Research Center .

Anthony Cilluffo is a former research analyst who focused on social and demographic trends at Pew Research Center .

72% of U.S. high school teachers say cellphone distraction is a major problem in the classroom

U.s. public, private and charter schools in 5 charts, is college worth it, half of latinas say hispanic women’s situation has improved in the past decade and expect more gains, a quarter of u.s. teachers say ai tools do more harm than good in k-12 education, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center