Only 15 of the identified measurement tools met common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence¶
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 15 measurement tools met acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence. → 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 reliability and validity evidence for the 66 tools against common acceptability thresholds in education research (Table 1); tools were rated Acceptable, Mixed, or Low per indicator. The review reports the count of 15 tools verbatim.
"only 15 measurement tools met the common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence."
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
- Content validity evidence was reported for only eight assessments and four screeners, and over half of tools were developed in WEIRD societies or in English — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Only one mathematical assessment and one screener (NSS) met the acceptability threshold for predictive validity — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Concurrent validity evidence is sparse: only 11 assessments and one screener aligned with other validated measurement tools — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Only four screeners demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
only-15-tools-meet-two-plus-thresholds |
title |
Only 15 of the identified measurement tools met common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence |
description |
Only 15 of the identified measurement tools met common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence |
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.