Concurrent validity evidence is sparse: only 11 assessments and one screener aligned with other validated measurement tools¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Only 11 mathematical assessments and one screener concurrently aligned with other validated tools; Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests and TEMA-3 were the most used references. → Laura A. Outhwaite 2024
Evidence¶
Laura A. Outhwaite 2024¶
Laura A. Outhwaite, Pirjo Aunio, Jaimie Ka Yu Leung, Jo Van Herwegen. (2024). Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Synthesis of criterion validity evidence for screeners against the correlation threshold ≥ .60 (Table 1). The review reports 11 screeners evaluated concurrent validity, commonly against Woodcock-Johnson Math subtests and TEMA-3, with only one screener acceptable.
"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"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A pre-registered systematic review identified 41 mathematical assessments and 25 screeners evaluated for psychometric properties in children aged 0–8 years — related
- ANS acuity is a unique concurrent predictor of preschool math ability beyond expressive vocabulary, non-numerical attention RT, and memory span — related
- The study collects concurrent validity evidence on the IRLA framework as a potential RTI screening tool — related
- Only 15 of the identified measurement tools met common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence — a broader claim this one bears on
- Only one mathematical assessment and one screener (NSS) met the acceptability threshold for predictive validity — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
concurrent-validity-sparse-11-assessments-one-screener |
title |
Concurrent validity evidence is sparse: only 11 assessments and one screener aligned with other validated measurement tools |
description |
Concurrent validity evidence is sparse: only 11 assessments and one screener aligned with other validated measurement tools |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — laura-a-outhwaite-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.