The current scope of developmental assessment: Results from an expert survey and systematic review

• In Event: An Introduction to the NIH Infant and Toddler Toolbox for infants 1-42 months

Abstract

A challenge of developmental science is choosing assessments to fit research designs. Assessments vary from standardized and normed measures to laboratory-based paradigms that are shared through open science. The study’s aim was to understand what measures or paradigms may be appropriate for monitoring infant and toddler outcomes. To accomplish this goal, we conducted 1) an expert survey of developmental researchers and clinicians and 2) a scoping review of available instruments. The results maximize existing science in the development of a brand-new standardized assessment battery for 1-42-month-olds: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Infant and Toddler Toolbox (NIH Baby Toolbox).

The expert survey—sent to developmental listservs, professional organizations, and research groups—was completed by 504 individuals. The majority of respondents reported multiple areas of expertise, including developmental psychology (71%), clinical psychology (21%), cognitive neuroscience (21%), neuropsychology (13%), pediatrics (8%), social neuroscience (8%), and psychometrics (7%). These experts provided input on the most critical subdomains and potential assessments to evaluate in six domain areas: Language, Cognition, Motor, Self-Regulation, Social Functioning, Numeracy (Table 1).

Concurrently, a scoping review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018) was conducted to identify common assessments in each domain (Table 1). Keywords for each domain were used to identify potentially related manuscripts published between Jan 2014-December 2019, assessing children from birth through 5 years, and which were published in either English or Spanish. Two independent screeners conducted title and abstract screening to exclude irrelevant manuscripts or those that met additional exclusion criteria (e.g., those that use only neuroimaging techniques). We also excluded articles that only utilized the “big three” commercial assessments: Bayley, Mullen, and Battelle. Full-text screening was conducted for further exclusion. Disagreements were settled by the domain expert. Finally, data extraction was conducted on the remaining manuscripts, including article title, author(s), publication year, language, sample age and clinical status, instrument name(s), score level, score type, and reliability estimates. Across all six domains, we identified 37,801 abstracts eligible for level-1 screening after removing duplication, ranging from 3000 (Self-Regulation) to over 9000 (Language) abstracts per domain. Approximately 10-15% of abstracts within each domain were eligible for full-text review. Additional findings from the scoping review, including prevalence of use with clinical populations, availability of psychometric indices, and age ranges tested will be described in the presentation.

The expert survey and scoping review supported the development of the NIH Baby Toolbox by providing a broad picture of the state of current developmental assessments. Results demonstrated that there is wide variability in the assessments used, with little commonality across domains. This presentation will help developmental researchers, clinicians, and epidemiologists understand the types of tools available, and the limitations and drawbacks of the state of developmental assessment.

Authors

• Rachel M Flynn, San Francisco State University
  Presenting Author

• Aaron J Kaat, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University

• Courtney King Blackwell, Northwestern University

• Sarah Pila, Northwestern University

• Cindy Nowinski, Northwestern University

• Miriam A Novack, Northwestern University

• Hannah Hagy, Loyola University Chicago

• Richard Gershon, Northwestern University