ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Predictive and concurrent validity of caregiver reported early childhood development assessments: A prospective cohort study of Tanzanian children.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many directly assessed and caregiver-reported measures of early childhood development (ECD) are used to monitor outcomes and evaluate interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many assessments of ECD for children 0-3 years old have robust psychometric properties, but relatively little is known about their ability to predict later developmental and learning outcomes. To address questions about predictive and concurrent validity, we used longitudinal data on three widely used measures of ECD from 487 children in Tanzania. This study examined the predictive validity of the Caregiver-Reported Early Development Instrument (CREDI) at 12 months of age with the directly assessed International Early Learning and Development Assessment (IDELA) and the caregiver-reported Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI 2030) administered at 3.5-6 years of age. We also examined the concurrent validity of the IDELA and ECDI2030 administered on the same day. Consistent with prior literature examining the predictive validity of ECD assessments in very young children, we find statistically significant but practically small (~.1 to.2) correlations between age-adjusted CREDI scores measured in infancy and both IDELA and ECDI2030 scores measured at preschool age. Contrary to expectations, CREDI scores were more predictive for children who took IDELA when older and for children whose mothers did not complete primary education. IDELA overall and domain scores had statistically significant medium-sized (~.4 to.5) correlations with ECDI2030 scores that were slightly larger than relations found in prior research. Our results demonstrate limited predictive power from a caregiver-reported assessment administered in infancy, highlighting how variable ECD is for young children. At preschool age, a directly assessed measure of ECD had better reliability than a shorter caregiver-reported measure, but scores on both measures correlated strongly, suggesting that caregiver-reported measures are capturing similar constructs to directly assessed measures of ECD when implemented at the same point in time.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.