Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 29, 2026
Assessment and Evaluation of the High Risk Neonate: The NICU Network Neurobehavioral Scale
Published on: August 25, 2014
Do research studies in the UK reporting child neurodevelopment adjust for the variability of assessors: a systematic
Rahila Khalid1, Peter Willatts2, Fiona L R Williams1
1Population Health Sciences, Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Insights
Reporting on neurodevelopmental assessment in children is often poor. Many studies fail to detail assessor numbers, training, or auditing, potentially masking true intervention effects.
Area of Science:
- Child development research
- Clinical trial methodology
- Neuroscience
Background:
- Neurodevelopmental outcomes are critical in childhood studies, influencing decisions on interventions.
- Detecting small differences in neurodevelopment is crucial for evaluating complex interventions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the reporting quality of neurodevelopmental studies regarding assessor details.
- To determine if multiple assessor data were statistically adjusted.
Main Methods:
- Systematic literature search of major databases (Medline, Embase, etc.) for UK-based child neurodevelopment studies (2000-2015).
- Inclusion of both trials and observational studies reporting neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Main Results:
- 52% of studies did not report the number of assessors.
- Only 35% mentioned assessor training, 13% reported auditing, and 1% adjusted for assessor variability.
- 21% used a single assessor, while 27% used multiple assessors.
Conclusions:
- Reporting standards for assessors in neurodevelopmental research are inadequate.
- Poor reporting may obscure genuine relationships between interventions and child neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Aim:
Neurodevelopment is a key outcome for many childhood trials and observational studies. Clinically important decisions may rest on finding relatively small differences in neurodevelopment between groups receiving complex and costly interventions. Our purpose was to determine whether studies which measure neurodevelopment report the numbers, training, and auditing of assessors and, for multiple assessor studies, whether the results were adjusted and if so by which method?
Method:
Electronic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. A study was eligible if it reported neurodevelopmental outcome in children resident in the UK, less than or equal to 18 years and was published between 2000 and 2015. Trials and observational studies were included.
Results:
Three hundred and seven full papers were reviewed: 52% of papers did not report the number of assessors used; 21% used a single assessor; and 27% used multiple assessors. Thirty-five per cent mentioned that assessors were trained in the use of the neurodevelopmental tool; 13% of assessors were audited; and only 1% of studies adjusted statistically for the number of assessors.
Interpretation:
At the very least, the quality of reporting the use of assessors in these research publications is poor, while at worst, the variability of assessors may mask the true relationship between an intervention/observation and neurodevelopmental outcome.
More Related Videos
09:16Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers
Published on: March 14, 2018
11:14A Novel Experimental and Analytical Approach to the Multimodal Neural Decoding of Intent During Social Interaction in Freely-behaving Human Infants
Published on: October 4, 2015