https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4130-468X
Correction
2 May 2023: Jeong J, Bliznashka L, Sullivan E, Hentschel E, Jeon Y, et al. (2023) Correction: Measurement tools and indicators for assessing nurturing care for early childhood development: A scoping review. PLOS Global Public Health 3(5): e0001906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001906 View correction
Figures
Abstract
Nurturing care encompasses five components that are crucial for supporting early childhood development: good health, adequate nutrition, opportunities for early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security. While there has been increasing attention in global public health towards designing and delivering programs, services, and policies to promote nurturing care, measurement has focused more on the components of health and nutrition, with less attention to early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security. We conducted a scoping review to identify articles that measured at least one nurturing care outcome in a sample of caregivers and/or children under-5 years of age in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically searched five electronic bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed articles published from database inception until November 30, 2020. We first classified outcomes to their respective nurturing care component, and then applied an inductive approach to organize key constructs within each nurturing care component and the specific measures and indicators used across studies. We identified 239 total articles representing more than 50 LMICs for inclusion in the review. The majority of included studies reported a measure of nutrition (N = 166), early learning (N = 140), and health (N = 102), followed by responsive caregiving (N = 78) and lastly safety and security (N = 45). For each nurturing care component, we uncovered multiple constructs relevant to children under-5: nutrition (e.g., anthropometry, complementary feeding), early learning (e.g., stimulation practices, early childhood education), health (e.g., birth outcomes, morbidity), responsive caregiving (e.g., parental responsivity, parent-child interactions), and safety and security (e.g., discipline, inadequate supervision). Particularly for outcomes of early learning and responsive caregiving, there was greater variability with regards to the measures used, reported indicators, and analytic construction of variables than the other three nurturing care components. This study provides a comprehensive review of the current state of measurement of nurturing care. Additional research is needed in order to establish the most optimal measures and indicators for assessing nurturing care, especially for early learning and responsive caregiving.
Citation: Jeong J, Bliznashka L, Sullivan E, Hentschel E, Jeon Y, Strong KL, et al. (2022) Measurement tools and indicators for assessing nurturing care for early childhood development: A scoping review. PLOS Glob Public Health 2(4): e0000373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000373
Editor: Hanna Nalecz, Instytut Matki i Dziecka, POLAND
Received: June 21, 2021; Accepted: March 31, 2022; Published: April 25, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Jeong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript or the supplementary files.
Funding: This work was funded by the World Health Organization (grant # 2020/1047163 awarded to J.J.). J.J. is supported, in part, by a Pathway to Independence Award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K99HD105984). The funders had no role in study design, data extraction and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Early childhood development (ECD) is defined as children’s cognitive, physical, language, motor, and social and emotional development broadly spanning from birth to age 8 [1]. It forms the basis for health, learning, and wellbeing of a person throughout the lifecourse [2]. Globally, approximately two in five children under-5 years of age are at risk of not reaching their developmental potential [3, 4]. Over the past decades, there has been an acceleration in our understanding of the science that underpins young children’s development, leading to greater knowledge about risk and protective factors as well as range of effective strategies for improving ECD and reducing inequities globally [5, 6]. This evidence has galvanized governments and a wide range of stakeholders to prioritize and invest in national and global programs and policies to promote ECD [7].
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (i.e., target 4.2 which calls for universal access to quality early childhood development, care, and pre-primary education) and the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health 2016–2030 recognize ECD as a critical outcome for health and well-being throughout the life course. These global frameworks provide strategic directions for ensuring children not only survive, but also thrive so that they are able to transform societies to improve health and reach human potential [8]. In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the World Bank, in collaboration with partners, launched the Nurturing Care Framework (NCF) as a roadmap for action, focusing especially on the critical period from conception until age 3 when key foundations are laid for children’s future health and development [1].
To unlock their full potential, children need to receive nurturing care, meaning that they are raised in a stable caregiving environment that enables good health, adequate nutrition, opportunities for early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security [1]. The NCF describes essential policies and interventions, presents a universal progressive model of care, and proposes strategic action areas that are crucial for creating an enabling environment for families and caregivers to support young children’s development. In particular, one strategic action of the NCF is to monitor progress, with the global milestone of “harmonized global indicators and measurement framework for nurturing care [that] are available and used to assess implementation and impact” [1]. Progress in this area requires a comprehensive mapping of measurement tools and indicators with respect to each component of nurturing care that have been used across LMICs.
To date, efforts towards harmonizing global indicators for young children have primarily focused on those related to health and nutrition. For example, there have been reviews on maternal and newborn health indicators [9, 10] and indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices [11]. Presently WHO and UNICEF have been coordinating global collaborations to further review, harmonize existing indicators, and identify gaps in indicators that require attention in the areas of maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition [12].
On the other hand, measurement and indicators of early learning, responsive caregiving, and aspects of security and safety have not received sufficient attention in prior research. In recent years building upon the momentum of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Nurturing Care Framework, new efforts such as the ECD working group of Countdown to 2030 have advanced a core set of indicators relating to all nurturing care components in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [13]. The primary sources of the data are population-based surveys, namely the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). These efforts have shown the need for more standardized monitoring of nurturing care and in particular the lack of a population-level indicator for responsive caregiving. However, measurement ambiguities for assessing nurturing care are not only of concern for population-level monitoring, but even more so in the context of program implementation and evaluation, especially for assessing early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security. In the absence of evidence-based guidance, a diverse and wide-ranging set of measures, indicators, and scoring methods are likely being used inconsistently across contexts and time, hampering programing monitoring and evaluation and national and global accountability and action.
To begin to address these gaps, we conducted a scoping review to summarize the measurement tools and indicators that have been used in the existing evidence to quantitatively operationalize the five components of nurturing care among children under-5 years of age in LMICs. Based on our review, we highlight trends and gaps in measurement and propose actions to inform future research, monitoring, implementation, and accountability for assessing programing for nurturing care globally.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review, rather than a systematic review, because this evidence synthesis methodology is more appropriate for the nature of the present study that spans a heterogeneous literature regarding a concept that is very broad in scope [14]. We present findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (see S1 Checklist) [15]. This scoping review was not preregistered.
Search strategy
We searched electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Global Health Library) for peer-reviewed, published articles from database inception until November 30, 2020. A string of search terms combined keywords for concepts relating to child development, the five nurturing care components (i.e., health, nutrition, responsive caregiving, security and safety, and early learning), early childhood, and LMICs. The search string used in MEDLINE can be found as an example in S1 Text. These terms were modified and adapted for use in the other databases. Reference lists of included studies were scanned for any additional relevant studies that may have been missed.
Study selection
Full-text articles were included if they met all the following criteria: (1) reported a quantitative indicator for any nurturing care component (i.e., health, nutrition, early learning, responsive caregiving, and security and safety), (2) targeted caregivers of children who were on average younger than aged five years, and (3) conducted in a LMIC. Studies were excluded if they targeted caregivers or children with diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders or disabilities (e.g., autism) or were not empirical articles that reported metrics, measures, or indicators based on primary data collection (e.g., qualitative studies, protocol papers, systematic reviews). From this list of all eligible studies, we prioritized those that measured a responsive caregiving, early learning, or safety and security indicator (no restriction applied to year of publication) and extracted all relevant nurturing care indicators from those studies, including any nutrition and health indicators. For the remaining set of eligible studies that only measured a nutrition and health indicator in the context of ECD, we extracted all studies published since 2019 and a randomly-selected 10% subsample of remaining studies published before 2019, as a way of managing the large number of studies identified in the electronic databases reporting nutrition and health indicators.
Data extraction
Four reviewers (JJ, ES, LB, YJ) were involved in the screening process of study titles and abstracts identified in the systematic search. Each study was independently screened by two reviewers using the web-based platform Covidence. Full texts of selected studies were reviewed to assess eligibility. Any discrepancy between the reviewers was resolved through discussion and consensus. Reference lists of included studies were examined to identify any potentially relevant publications not found through the electronic search.
Four reviewers (JJ, ES, LB, EH) independently extracted data from each eligible study using a structured extraction form in Excel. The main categories of data extracted for each study included: study design, sample, component of nurturing care measured, measurement tool, scoring and variable construction approach, and quality of the measure. JJ trained the reviewers over the course of a four-week training period (between September and October 2020) on how to use the data extraction sheet through a series of pilot exercises of pre-identified eligible articles, which each reviewer independently extracted. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus; iterations were made to the extraction sheet as needed; and piloting continued until there were no changes needed to the extraction sheet and there was agreement in extractions across independent reviewers. In total, 20 articles were independently extracted by at least two reviewers and finalized during this training period. Thereafter, only one reviewer independently extracted each article. Weekly team meetings were held throughout the data extraction process (October 2020 to January 2021) to address any potential questions, which were resolved through discussion and consensus, and monitor data extraction progress.
Data synthesis
We summarized the included studies by general study-level meta-data, including geography represented, year of publication, study purpose/objective (e.g., population monitoring vs individual assessment), and sample characteristics. For each reported outcome relevant to nurturing care, we first broadly determined which component it most related to (e.g., early learning, responsive care, safety and security) based on definitions from the NCF [1]. Then within each component, we identified any standardized measures. We define measures as a survey, scale, tool, or set of items that is designed to assess a particular concept. For example, the HOME Inventory is an example of a measure for parenting and the general quality of the caregiving environment [16]. After identifying the measures, we specified the indicator or variables that were constructed to quantify or operationalize the measure. For example, using the HOME Inventory, potential indicators could be the overall total score (across all subscales) or a particular subscale score (e.g., the parental responsivity subscale score). Finally, for further organization, we inductively grouped measures and indicators that represented similar constructs within a given nurturing care component. For example, if there were multiple measures that focused on whether children had play materials or books in the home, we could create a construct for “learning materials in the home” within the nurturing care component for early learning. We iteratively refined the list of constructs based on discussions among the research team. In this review, we present a narrative synthesis of results that summarize the various thematic constructs identified for each nurturing care component, the measures used, and the specific indicators and scoring approaches applied to the measures across studies. We did not assess quality or risk of bias for the included articles as the objective of this review was to more general in scope and aimed to describe the breadth of measurement tools and indicators that has been used in the literature.
Results
A total of 3,091 articles were identified from the electronic database search. An additional 8 were identified through other sources. A total of 239 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the scoping review (Fig 1). Characteristics for each study included are presented in S1 Table. Overall, the majority of articles that reported an outcome of nurturing care were in the context of program evaluations (54%), assessed caregivers and/or children during the first year of life (62%), and were mostly in Africa (30%), the Americas (19%), and the South East Asia (19%) regions (Table 1).
Out of the 239 articles extracted, nurturing care outcomes were most commonly represented for early learning (N = 140, 59%), then responsive caregiving (N = 78, 33%), and finally safety and security (N = 45, 19%). While different criteria were used for extracting nutrition and health outcomes thus limiting direct comparability, more than two-in-three articles measured a nutrition outcome (N = 166, 69%) and two-in-five measured a health outcome (N = 102, 43%). Of the five components of nurturing care, the median number of components assessed per study was two out of five, with the most commonly co-measured components being either nutrition and health (N = 89), or early learning and responsive caregiving (N = 58). For each nurturing care component, there was a consistent increase over the past decade in the number of published articles, with a striking growth particularly for early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security after 2016 (Fig 2).
Note, the search was conducted in November, 2020, so trends for 2020 in the stacked bar graph may be incomplete.
Table 2 summarizes the main constructs, measures, and indicators identified for each nurturing care component, which we elaborate upon further in the sections below. Figs 3 and 4 are treemaps, which illustrate the hierarchical structure of the results organized broadly in terms of the nurturing care components. Fig 3 shows the results for three of the nurturing care components–early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security–plus a fourth identified category that combined early learning and responsive caregiving. Fig 4 shows the results for the remaining two nurturing care components of nutrition and health. We separated these into two figures because the results for nutrition and health are not directly comparable to the other nurturing care components, considering the different methodology applied for reviewing studies with respect to those two components.
Each rectangle represents a unique indicator that is nested in terms of three levels: nurturing care component (e.g., early learning), construct (e.g., learning materials), and indicator (e.g., numbers of books in the home). The size, location, and color of the rectangle is proportional to number of unique studies and the hierarchical structure.
Each rectangle represents a unique indicator that is nested in terms of three levels: nurturing care component (e.g., nutrition), construct (e.g., anthropometry), and indicator (e.g., length/height-for-age z-score). The size, location, and color of the rectangle is proportional to number of unique studies and the hierarchical structure.
Early learning
One hundred ten studies measured the NCF component of early learning (Table 3). We identified four constructs: stimulation practices, learning materials, household stimulation, and early childhood education (ECE). Stimulation practices referred to activities that a caregiver engaged in with the child to promote early learning and development (e.g., reading, playing, naming things to child). Five different standardized measures were referenced, of which the Family Care Indicators (FCI) or an abbreviated version as used in the MICS was the most common. With this measure alone, we found seven different analytical approaches or indicators. A continuous variable for total number of stimulation activities was the most common (N = 14).
Learning materials referred to the presence or availability of learning materials for a child in the household, such as books and toys. We identified three standardized measures, and again the FCI or the abbreviated version as used in MICS were most often used. Specifically, an index score of the total number of play materials or books was the most common indicator (N = 8)
The third construct, household stimulation, represented a singular measure that intertwined both caregivers’ engagement in stimulating activities (e.g., reading, playing) and learning materials available to children in the household (e.g., books, toys), and did not report these two components separately as above. The FCI measure, and specifically a total score as the indicator, was the most common example of this case (N = 15). Finally, the last construct pertained to early childhood education (ECE), which was most frequently measured as a single item for whether children attended an ECE program (N = 26).
Responsive caregiving
Forty-seven studies broadly measured responsive caregiving (Table 4). We uncovered significant variability in measurement tools for responsive caregiving and more specifically the degree to which these tools assessed responsive caregiving specifically versus other broader aspects of the parent-child relationship. To document this, we classified measures into three constructs: measures that specifically assessed parental responsivity to some degree, other measures that were more generally about the parent-child relationship but not technically responsiveness, and any measures that focused on responsive feeding in particular. For this component, we focused on summarizing the various measures used to assess responsive caregiving, but did not additionally document the specific analytical variables constructed from each measure, given that there was less variation in the indicators from a given measure.
Overall, the Responsive Interactions for Learning-Version for Parents (RIFL-P), was the only tool identified that primarily measured responsiveness (N = 1). Several other tools included subscales or few items assessing parental responsiveness, but these were part of a broader measure that assessed other dimensions of parenting besides responsiveness (e.g., HOME). The majority of identified tools assessed general caregiver-child relationships without a specific focus on responsiveness (N = 29), but they may have assessed another related parenting behavior such as sensitivity. For example, the Observation of Mother-Child Interactions tool was the most commonly used tool to assess parent-child relationships (N = 9). Finally, we identified a small number of studies that specifically measured responsive feeding (N = 7). The majority of responsive feeding measures were not validated and ranged considerably from direct observations of mother-child feeding interactions to brief survey asking mothers about how they encourage the child to eat when the child refuses.
Early learning/responsive caregiving
While the vast majority of indicators could be classified as pertaining to early learning or responsive caregiving, one notable exception was the HOME inventory, which is a multidimensional measure originally conceptualized according to six subdomains that broadly assess both early learning and responsive caregiving. Some articles reported each HOME subdomain score separately (often as a total subdomain score) which allowed us to classify the indicator to the respective non-overlapping component above (e.g., HOME responsivity subscale classified as an indicator for responsive caregiving). However, in most cases, articles reported an overall total HOME score spanning items across all six subdomains (pertain to both early learning and responsive caregiving), and therefore, the aggregated single indicator was considered as representing both early learning and responsive caregiving. Forty-three studies reported an overall HOME score as a continuous variable representing the sum total HOME score was the most common indicator (N = 41) and/or a proportion using some cutoff point to indicate high/low quality home environment (N = 5).
Safety & security
Forty-five studies reported an indicator relevant to safety and security (Table 5). For this domain, we identified four main constructs: disciplinary practices, maternal exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV), inadequate supervision of the child, and birth registration. For disciplinary practices, we identified six standardized measures. The most common measure was the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale as used in MICS, from which seven different types of indicators were reported across studies. The proportion of caregivers who used any physical punishment against the child was the most common indicator (N = 6).
Maternal IPV was most commonly measured using the Conflict and Tactics Scale or an adapted version as used in the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Questionnaire or the DHS. The most common indicator was the proportion of mothers who reported any form of IPV victimization (physical, emotional, and/or sexual violence) (N = 7).
Inadequate supervision of the child was measured using a one-item indicator that was predominantly collected as part of the MICS household survey (N = 5). Finally, birth registration was reported in 1 study using a single-item indicator collected as part of the MICS household survey.
Nutrition
We identified 166 total studies which reported at least one indicator for nutrition (Table 6). We grouped indicators into five constructs: anthropometry, breastfeeding practices, complementary feeding practices, micronutrient status, and food security. For anthropometry, all indicators were standardized with 16 indicators based on the 2006 WHO Child Growth Standards and 4 indicators based on 1977 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Growth Curves for Children. The most frequently reported anthropometry indicator was length/height-for-age Z-score in the majority of studies (N = 125).
Four of the 11 indicators for breastfeeding practices and 6 of the 13 indicators for complementary feeding practices were based on the 2008 WHO Infant and Young Child Feeding Indicators. The rest of the indicators for breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices were not standardized. While nearly all other indicators were used across studies among samples of children ranging broadly from 0–5 years of age, complementary feeding practices were particularly assessed in children 6–24 months of age.
We identified 4 indicators in the micronutrient status group, two of which were based on direct assessment of blood samples. Lastly, we identified 2 indicators of food security based on standardized measures: the Household Hunger Scale (HHS) and the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS). Both were reported as count scores, categorical variables, or binary variables, depending on the purposes of the studies.
Health
We identified 102 total studies which reported at least one indicator for health across five categories: birth outcomes, morbidity, hygiene and health practices, healthcare utilization, and mortality (Table 7). Within the birth outcomes categories, although 4 of the indicators are based on international standards, these standards were not specifically reported or cited as the measurement source in the studies. Nevertheless, all birth outcomes indicators were consistently reported across multiple studies. Birth weight was the most frequently reported indicator (n = 41).
Eight out of the nine 9 of the morbidity indicators are based on international standards that were consistently reported across studies, with minor variability (e.g., change in recall period) to align the indicators for the purposes of the study. Child diarrhea was the most frequently reported indicator (n = 29).
With respect to hygiene and health practices, we identified two indicators. Neither one was standardized, and both assessed household- and child-level practices either combined or separately. Lastly, the healthcare utilization and mortality categories each contained only a single indicator. Neither one was standardized or consistently reported across studies.
Discussion
This scoping review included 239 articles from over 50 LMICs that measured at least one outcome pertaining to nurturing care in a sample of caregivers and/or children younger than age five years. We identified several main measurement constructs for each nurturing care component. More specifically, this included: for early learning–stimulation practices, learning materials, and early childhood education; for responsive caregiving–measures specifically capturing responsive caregiving, quality of parent-child relationships more broadly, and responsive feeding; safety and security–disciplinary practices, maternal exposure to intimate partner violence, inadequate supervision, and birth registration; for nutrition–anthropometry, complementary feeding, breastfeeding, food security, and micronutrient status; and for health–birth outcomes, morbidity, hygiene and health practices, healthcare utilization, and mortality. Although the most common constructs were generally identifiable for each nurturing care component, we found greater variability in the definitions, measures, and specific indicators used for outcomes of early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security, compared to nutrition or health. Overall, this study provides a broad and comprehensive review of the current state of measurement of nurturing care and highlights the need for more research and guidance to inform robust standardized measures that are fit-for-purpose for monitoring and evaluating nurturing care globally.
There have been considerable efforts over the past decades to establish global recommendations and guidelines for child nutrition and health metrics and subsequent investment towards monitoring, accountability, and tracking of health and nutrition indicators for young children globally [12, 17]. We found that most of the nutrition and health indicators were multifunctional and used in both population-level household surveys and program evaluations. For example, minimum dietary diversity scores based on child consumption of any food in each of eight food groups has been broadly used across contexts, including as part of the DHS [11]. However, we found that one measure of child nutrition in particular– 24-hour dietary recall of types and quantities of all foods and beverages consumed–were used exclusively in program evaluations. This measure is more labor and time intensive, requires substantial training of enumerators, and may not often be feasible to collect as part of population-based household surveys [18].
In contrast, there was greater variation in definition, measures, and indicators used for outcomes of early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security. Of these three nurturing care components, the greatest heterogeneity and inconsistency was observed across measures of responsive caregiving. Most measures broadly assessed general qualities of parenting rather than specifically responsive caregiving [19, 20]. For example, the Observation of Mother-Child Interactions tool [21] was one of the most common standardized measures used for assessing parent-child interactions broadly. It comprises of 19 items (12 for parent behaviors and 7 for child behaviors). The original tool was developed to include three possible indicators: a parent-score, a child-score, or a total score, and the majority of all identified studies reported a total OMCI score or parent sub-score. Although six of the 12 parent items assess parental behaviors more relevant to responsiveness, none of the studies using the OMCI operationalized these as a specific indicator for responsive care. Thus, we did not classify the OMCI as a measure for specifically assessing responsive caregiving. Similar issues are present with the other measures that include observation of responsiveness alongside general parenting or parental engagement for early learning (e.g., HOME inventory). Given that subscales for responsiveness have not yet been established within broader measures of parenting, we found that the vast majority of current measures do not specifically assess responsiveness. This highlights the need for further measurement work, including the development and testing of a new tool, in order to fill this data gap in monitoring specifically responsive caregiving of the Nurturing Care Framework [22]. Notwithstanding, we found a stark increase in articles measuring responsive caregiving as well as early learning and safety and security over the past decade. These positive trends likely reflect the momentum and success of recent advocacy efforts and redoubling of investments in parenting programs for ECD in LMICs that have renewed interest and demand in measurement and evaluation of parenting outcomes with respect to ECD [23, 24].
At the same time, we also uncovered a number of methodological differences present across the landscape of nurturing care indicators. While most nutrition and health indicators (as well as many safety and security indicators) were scored as proportions (reflecting the primary intended design for use in population-level monitoring), outcome measures for early learning (e.g., FCI) and responsive caregiving (e.g., OMCI) were largely analyzed as continuous or index scores [21, 25]. Moreover, given the lack of validation studies for the optimal scoring of early learning and responsive caregiving measures, we identified inconsistencies with regards to the scoring, analytical approaches, and reporting of these indicators. For example, across studies measuring stimulation practices using the common measure of the FCI, we found substantial variation in methods and reporting of indicators, ranging from index scores, proportions that applied different cutoffs to the overall score, to individual indicators at the item-level. This heterogeneity in indicators of early learning and responsive care can also be seen visually in the treemap, with each rectangle representing a unique scoring approach. Such analytic decisions and resulting indicators were largely not described or justified across studies.
Relatedly, evidence regarding reliability and validity was highly variable and not established for many scoring methods. Therefore, we could not directly compare the relative strength of the different indicators used across studies (e.g., using an index score versus cutoff to assess stimulation) or determine whether certain indicators demonstrated stronger reliability and validity across cultural contexts. Finally, while nearly all nurturing care indicators were used among children broadly under age 5 years, several of the measures were specifically developed or primarily assessed among children of more narrowly defined age ranges (e.g., HOME Inventory: Infant and Toddler version developed for children 0–3 years; OMCI developed for children aged 6–24 months). Therefore, additional measurement validation research is needed especially for measures of early learning and responsive caregiving measures to establish the psychometric properties and any adaptations need if to be used with a broad age range of children 0–5 years.
Taken together, our findings highlight the need for more research and guidance regarding the most valid and reliable measures, appropriate scoring methods, and standardized reporting of indicators for nurturing care. In particular, clear definitions–both in terms of the theoretical constructs as well as the analytic variable construction–are needed in order to operationalize and distinguish between the nurturing care components of early learning and responsive caregiving. Currently, due to the lack of established guidance for these nurturing care domains as well as suboptimal reporting of these measures in the peer-reviewed literature, we identified a considerable degree of uncertainty as to which measures adequately capture responsive caregiving. Standardized definitions and metrics are crucial for enabling robust monitoring and comparisons of nurturing care data across countries and time [1]. Recognizing the unique goals and varying constraints of population-level monitoring versus program evaluation or individual-level assessments, such measurement guidance and prioritized indicators for nurturing care should be tailored to these different purposes and contexts of measurement, as has similarly been proposed for measuring ECD for global monitoring versus program evaluation purposes in LMICs [26]. It is worth noting that nearly all identified measures of responsive caregiving were used in program evaluations or research cohort studies, largely involved direct observations, included multi-item scales, and generally required dedicated time for training and piloting with data collectors, which may not be as feasible to collect as part of large-scale surveys. More work is particularly needed to determine indicators that can be introduced into national surveys to ensure monitoring of responsive caregiving at a population-level. Lessons learned from the field of maternal and newborn health quality of care, and recent success with introducing direct observation indicators as part of large national surveys [27], can guide similar efforts towards potentially measuring responsive care in population-level surveys.
Limitations
This scoping review had some limitations. First, articles varied in the reporting of measurement details (e.g., sources of measures, how indicators were constructed), which was partly a reflection of improved measurement reporting standards over time but also disciplinary differences in journal outlet expectations. As we relied on the information that was presented in the given article by the study authors, there is the possibility of misclassification for some measures and indicators of our results. At the same time, this approach was also advantageous in uncovering the heterogeneity in definitions and particular scoring approaches, especially for early learning and responsive caregiving. Second, we did not assess the feasibility considerations, cross-cultural applicability, or psychometric evidence (e.g., predictive validity with respect to ECD outcomes) associated with the different measures and indicators, largely because these details were not reported in the majority of studies. These aspects are additionally critical for determining the relative strength and making decisions between different measurement approaches. Finally, our scoping review was limited to metrics reported in the peer-reviewed literature and in English language publications. While we may have missed other measures and indicators used in program reports or by implementing agencies, we expect that the measures and indicators summarized in our study include those that are the most robust and common approaches in the field.
Conclusions
We reviewed the literature and identified measures and indicators used to assess outcomes relevant to the five domains of nurturing care for ECD. We uncovered significant variability with regards to measures, scoring, and reporting of indicators for particularly early learning, responsive caregiving, and safety and security. Based on our findings, there is a great need for further statistical analyses (e.g., validation, cross-cultural measurement invariance) as well as user-experience information (e.g., stakeholders’ perceptions about relevance, feasibility, and practical considerations relating to administration) to guide subsequent processes of establishing the most optimal and robust indicators for use in LMIC contexts. While this current work has focused on measuring outcomes of nurturing care, monitoring guidance is needed to define and prioritize a standard set of input and output indicators that should also be comprehensively evaluated as part of the broader logic model for improving nurturing care.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Characteristics for each study included in scoping review on nurturing care indicators.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000373.s003
(DOCX)
References
- 1. World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, World Bank Group. Nurturing care for early childhood development: a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential. 2018.
- 2. Thompson RA, Nelson CA. Developmental science and the media. Early brain development. Am Psychol. 2001;56(1):5–15. pmid:11242988.
- 3. Lu C, Black MM, Richter LM. Risk of poor development in young children in low-income and middle-income countries: an estimation and analysis at the global, regional, and country level. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(12):e916–e22. Epub 2016/10/09. pmid:27717632.
- 4. Lu C, Cuartas J, Fink G, McCoy D, Liu K, Li Z, et al. Inequalities in early childhood care and development in low/middle-income countries: 2010–2018. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(2):e002314. Epub 2020/03/07. pmid:32133201; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7042597.
- 5. Black MM, Walker SP, Fernald LCH, Andersen CT, DiGirolamo AM, Lu C, et al. Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. The Lancet. 2017;389(10064):77–90. pmid:27717614
- 6. Jeong J, Franchett EE, Ramos de Oliveira CV, Rehmani K, Yousafzai AK. Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine. 2021;18(5):e1003602. pmid:33970913
- 7. Richter LM, Daelmans B, Lombardi J, Heymann J, Boo FL, Behrman JR, et al. Investing in the foundation of sustainable development: pathways to scale up for early childhood development. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):103–18. pmid:27717610; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5880532.
- 8. Every Woman Every Child. Global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health 2016–2030. 2015.
- 9. Benova L, Moller A-B, Hill K, Vaz LME, Morgan A, Hanson C, et al. What is meant by validity in maternal and newborn health measurement? A conceptual framework for understanding indicator validation. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233969. pmid:32470019
- 10. Moller AB, Newby H, Hanson C, Morgan A, El Arifeen S, Chou D, et al. Measures matter: A scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204763. pmid:30300361; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6177145.
- 11. World Health Organization, UNICEF. Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: definitions and measurement methods. World Health Organization, 2021.
- 12. Strong K, Requejo J, Agweyu A, McKerrow N, Schellenberg J, Agbere DA, et al. Child Health Accountability Tracking-extending child health measurement. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(4):259–61. Epub 2020/02/16. pmid:32059788.
- 13. Richter L, Black M, Britto P, Daelmans B, Desmond C, Devercelli A, et al. Early childhood development: an imperative for action and measurement at scale. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 4):e001302. pmid:31297254; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6590994.
- 14. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033.
- 16. Bradley RH, Caldwell BM. The HOME Inventory and family demographics. Dev Psychol. 1984;20(2):315–20.
- 17. Heidkamp RA, Piwoz E, Gillespie S, Keats EC, D’Alimonte MR, Menon P, et al. Mobilising evidence, data, and resources to achieve global maternal and child undernutrition targets and the Sustainable Development Goals: an agenda for action. Lancet. 2021;397(10282):1400–18. Epub 2021/03/11. pmid:33691095.
- 18.
Baranowski T. 24-Hour Recall and Diet Record Methods. 3rd ed. Willett W, editor. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012.
- 19. Roggman LA, Cook GA, Innocenti MS, Jump Norman V, Christiansen K. Parenting interactions with children: Checklist of observations linked to outcomes (PICCOLO) in diverse ethnic groups. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2013;34(4):290–306.
- 20.
Sumner G, Spietz A. NCAST caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. Seattle. NCAST Publications. 1994.
- 21. Rasheed MA, Yousafzai AK. The development and reliability of an observational tool for assessing mother-child interactions in field studies- experience from Pakistan. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(6):1161–71. Epub 2015/09/10. pmid:26350208.
- 22.
Hentschel E, Yousafzai A, Aboud FE. The Nurturing Care Framework: Indicators for Measuring Responsive Care and Early Learning Activities. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021.
- 23. Aboud FE, Prado EL. Measuring the implementation of early childhood development programs. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1419(1):249–63. Epub 2018/05/24. pmid:29791725.
- 24. Milner KM, Bhopal S, Black M, Dua T, Gladstone M, Hamadani J, et al. Counting outcomes, coverage and quality for early child development programmes. Arch Dis Child. 2019;104(Suppl 1):S13–S21. Epub 2019/03/20. pmid:30885962; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6557221.
- 25. Kariger P, Frongillo EA, Engle P, Britto PM, Sywulka SM, Menon P. Indicators of family care for development for use in multicountry surveys. J Health Popul Nutr. 2012;30(4):472–86. Epub 2013/01/12. pmid:23304914; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3763619.
- 26. Boggs D, Milner KM, Chandna J, Black M, Cavallera V, Dua T, et al. Rating early child development outcome measurement tools for routine health programme use. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2019;104(Suppl 1):S22. pmid:30885963
- 27. Sheffel A, Karp C, Creanga AA. Use of Service Provision Assessments and Service Availability and Readiness Assessments for monitoring quality of maternal and newborn health services in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Global Health. 2018;3(6):e001011. pmid:30555726
- 28. Hamadani JD, Tofail F, Hilaly A, Huda SN, Engle P, Grantham-McGregor SM. Use of family care indicators and their relationship with child development in Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 2010;28(1):23–33. Epub 2010/03/11. pmid:20214083; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2975843.
- 29. Dreyer BP, Mendelsohn AL, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Assessing the Child’s Cognitive Home Environment Through Parental Report; Reliability and Validity. Early Development and Parenting. 1996;5(4):271–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199612)5:4<271::AID-EDP138>3.0.CO;2-D.
- 30. Ip P, Tso W, Rao N, Ho FKW, Chan KL, Fu KW, et al. Rasch validation of the Chinese parent-child interaction scale (CPCIS). World J Pediatr. 2018;14(3):238–46. Epub 2018/03/17. pmid:29546580.
- 31. Hua J, Wu ZC, Gu GX, Meng W. [Assessment on the validity and reliability of Family Environment Scale on Motor Development for Urban Pre-school Children]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2012;33(5):464–9. Epub 2012/08/14. pmid:22883170.
- 32.
Harms T, Clifford RM, Cryer D. Early childhood environment rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press; 1998.
- 33.
Harms T, Cryer D, Clifford RM. Infant/toddler environment rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press New York; 2006.
- 34. Farran DC, Kasari C, Comfort M, Jay S. Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scale. 1986.
- 35. Prime H, Browne D, Akbari E, Wade M, Madigan S, Jenkins JM. The development of a measure of maternal cognitive sensitivity appropriate for use in primary care health settings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2015;56(4):488–95. pmid:25185716
- 36. Al‐Hassan SM, Lansford JE. Evaluation of the better parenting programme in Jordan. Early child development and care. 2011;181(5):587–98. pmid:21769161
- 37. Diniz E, DeSousa D, Koller SH, Volling BL. Longitudinal effects of contextual and proximal factors on mother-infant interactions among Brazilian adolescent mothers. Infant Behavior and Development. 2016;43:36–43.
- 38. Aruna M, Vazir S, Vidyasagar P. Child rearing and positive deviance in the development of preschoolers: A Micro Analysis. Indian Pediatr. 2001;38(4):332–9. pmid:11313503
- 39. Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Cote LR, Haynes OM, Suwalsky JT. Mother-infant contingent vocalizations in 11 countries. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(8):1272–84. pmid:26133571
- 40. Aboud FE. Evaluation of an early childhood parenting programme in rural Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 2007;25(1):3. pmid:17615899
- 41. Bernard K, Meade E, Dozier M. Parental synchrony and nurturance as targets in an attachment based intervention: Building upon Mary Ainsworth’s insights about mother–infant interaction. Attach Hum Dev. 2013;15(5–6):507–23. pmid:24299132
- 42. Klein PS, Alony S. Immediate and sustained effects of maternal mediating behaviors on young children. Journal of Early Intervention. 1993;17(2):177–93.
- 43. Pederson DR, Moran G. Appendix B: Maternal Behavior Q-Set. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1995;60(2/3):247–54.
- 44.
DeBruin-Parecki A. Let’s Read Together: Improving Literacy Outcomes with the Adult-Child Interactive Reading Inventory (ACIRI). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company; 2007.
- 45. Crittenden P. Using the CARE-Index for screening, intervention, and research 2005. Available from: https://patcrittenden.com/include/docs/care_index.pdf.
- 46. Sanders MR, Morawska A, Haslam DM, Filus A, Fletcher R. Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS): validation of a brief parent-report measure for use in assessment of parenting skills and family relationships. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2014;45(3):255–72. Epub 2013/08/21. pmid:23955254.
- 47. Haltigan JD, Leerkes EM, Burney RV, O’Brien M, Supple AJ, Calkins SD. The Infant Crying Questionnaire: initial factor structure and validation. Infant Behav Dev. 2012;35(4):876–83. Epub 2012/09/26. pmid:23007097; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3494785.
- 48. Rempel LA, Rempel JK, Khuc TN, Vui LT. Influence of father-infant relationship on infant development: A father-involvement intervention in Vietnam. Dev Psychol. 2017;53(10):1844–58. pmid:28816464
- 49. Murray L, De Pascalis L, Tomlinson M, Vally Z, Dadomo H, MacLachlan B, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a book-sharing intervention in a deprived South African community: effects on carer-infant interactions, and their relation to infant cognitive and socioemotional outcome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57(12):1370–9. Epub 2016/07/29. pmid:27465028; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5659125.
- 50. Uwemedimo OT, Howlader A, Pierret G. Parenting Practices and Associations with Development Delays among Young Children in Dominican Republic. Ann Glob Health. 2017;83(3–4):568–76. pmid:29221530
- 51. Maselko J, Hagaman AK, Bates LM, Bhalotra S, Biroli P, Gallis JA, et al. Father involvement in the first year of life: Associations with maternal mental health and child development outcomes in rural Pakistan. Soc Sci Med. 2019;237:112421. Epub 2019/08/10. pmid:31398510; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6708722.
- 52. Aboud FE, Shafique S, Akhter S. A responsive feeding intervention increases children’s self-feeding and maternal responsiveness but not weight gain. J Nutr. 2009;139(9):1738–43. Epub 2009/07/10. pmid:19587124.
- 53. Tomlinson M, Rabie S, Skeen S, Hunt X, Murray L, Cooper PJ. Improving mother-infant interaction during infant feeding: A randomised controlled trial in a low-income community in South Africa. Infant Ment Health J. 2020;41(6):850–8. Epub 2020/07/16. pmid:32667053.
- 54. Bhopal S, Roy R, Verma D, Kumar D, Avan B, Khan B, et al. Impact of adversity on early childhood growth & development in rural India: Findings from the early life stress sub-study of the SPRING cluster randomised controlled trial (SPRING-ELS). PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0209122. Epub 2019/01/10. pmid:30625145; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6326522.
- 55. Dearden KA, Hilton S, Bentley ME, Caulfield LE, Wilde C, Ha PB, et al. Caregiver verbal encouragement increases food acceptance among Vietnamese toddlers. J Nutr. 2009;139(7):1387–92. pmid:19439464
- 56. Frongillo EA, Nguyen PH, Saha KK, Sanghvi T, Afsana K, Haque R, et al. Large-Scale Behavior-Change Initiative for Infant and Young Child Feeding Advanced Language and Motor Development in a Cluster-Randomized Program Evaluation in Bangladesh. J Nutr. 2017;147(2):256–63. pmid:28031374 ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT01678716.
- 57. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Finkelhor D, Moore DW, Runyan D. Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse Negl. 1998;22(4):249–70. Epub 1998/05/20. pmid:9589178.
- 58. Guo M, Morawska A, Filus A. Validation of the Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales to Measure Parenting Skills and Family Adjustment in Chinese Parents. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2017;50(3):139–54.
- 59. Roopnarine JL, Jin B, Krishnakumar A. Do Guyanese mothers’ levels of warmth moderate the association between harshness and justness of physical punishment and preschoolers’ prosocial behaviours and anger? Int J Psychol. 2014;49(4):271–9. pmid:24990638
- 60. Huang L, Malone PS, Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Bombi AS, et al. Measurement invariance of discipline in different cultural contexts. Family Science. 2011;2(3):212–9. pmid:23997855
- 61. Socolar R, Savage E, Devellis RF, Evans H. The discipline survey: a new measure of parental discipline. Ambul Pediatr. 2004;4(2):166–73. Epub 2004/03/17. pmid:15018601.
- 62.
World Health Organization. WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.