Designing and Assessing Integrated Learning in Early Childhood Education

The ECE Assessment Paradigm Shift

Historical Evolution: Moving away from rigid, checklist-based standardized tests modeled after older student evaluations (Whitfield 2025; Farber and Merchant 2023).
Whole-Child Lens: Evaluating interconnected growth across cognitive, physical, socio-emotional, and linguistic domains.
Contextual Grounding: Evaluating young children within natural, familiar classroom activities rather than contrived test conditions (Whitfield 2025; Pyle and Danniels 2017).

Measurement Error: Traditional standardized testing in early childhood produces severe construct-irrelevant variance (Józefacka and Moc 2026).
Authentic Assessment: Evaluating what children know and can do while embedded in daily learning routines (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).

From a psychometric perspective, traditional standardized testing in early childhood produces severe construct-irrelevant variance and measurement error due to young children’s fluctuating attention, test anxiety, and reliance on contextual cues (Farber and Merchant 2023; Józefacka and Moc 2026). Deep research in child development confirms that young children construct knowledge through play, social relationships, and open exploration. Consequently, professional standards have shifted toward authentic assessment—evaluating what children know and can do while embedded in daily learning routines (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003; Whitfield 2025). Our goal as early childhood psychometricians is not to measure isolated skills under artificial pressure, but to capture authentic, strengths-based evidence of developmental progress across all domains.

Theoretical Foundation: ‘Designing Learning Experiences’

Triadic Design Architecture: Synthesizing Philosophical Beliefs, Learning Experiences, and the Curriculum Framework.
Central Precondition: “Imagining and knowing the child” as the foundational engine of all curriculum decisions.
Pedagogical Justification: Making visible and explicitly justifying every curricular choice through theory and evidence (Pyle et al. 2020).

Pillar 1: Philosophical Beliefs

Image of the Child: Viewing children as active, agentic co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive vessels.
Image of the Teacher: Reframing the educator as an intentional facilitator, keen observer, and scaffolding partner.
Role of Parents: Partnering with families as primary experts on their children’s home culture and development (Whitfield 2025).

Pillar 2: Constructing Learning Experiences

Opportunities for Discovery: Designing open-ended investigation and inquiry across integrated subject areas.
Role of the Environment: Structuring the physical environment as a “third teacher” that provokes learning and social interaction.
Play-Based Pedagogy: Embedding valued conceptual content within meaningful, child-led play contexts (Pyle and Danniels 2017, 2017).

Behavioral Sampling Field: When materials invite rich peer interactions and complex play, children naturally display higher-order executive functioning and spatial reasoning (Veraksa et al. 2025).

Pillar 3: Curriculum Frameworks and Alignment

Systemic Alignment: Establishing logical links between early learning standards, pedagogy, and assessment tools (Whitaker et al. 2022; National Association for the Education of Young Children 2026).
Singapore’s NEL Framework: Anchoring learning goals in MOE’s Nurturing Early Learners framework (Ministry of Education 2026).
Theoretical Grounding: Connecting observation and lesson design to established child development theories (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).

The third column focuses on the Curriculum Framework. Systemic coherence requires that our assessment methods perfectly reflect our curricular goals and pedagogical theories. NAEYC Accreditation Item A.5.04 explicitly mandates that curriculum approaches must be aligned with the program’s assessment tools (National Association for the Education of Young Children 2026). In Singapore, we ground our scope and learning goals in the Ministry of Education’s NEL Framework. When designing your AED16B assignments, you must explicitly defend how your assessment tools measure the specific developmental outcomes outlined by national standards and developmental research (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).

Defining Integrated Play Learning Experiences (IPLE)

Cross-Domain Synergy: Blending at least two developmental or subject areas (e.g., literacy, numeracy, arts) within play (Whitfield 2025).
Holistic Connections: Helping children recognize conceptual relationships across disciplines rather than fragmented subjects.
AED16B IPLE Focus: Fulfilling course expectations through intentional, play-based curriculum design.

Core Assessment Dichotomy: Formative vs. Summative

Formative Assessment: Ongoing, process-oriented checks during daily instruction to inform and adjust immediate teaching (Whitfield 2025).
Summative Assessment: Point-in-time evaluation (portfolios, checklists) summarizing cumulative progress over time (Whitfield 2025).

%%{init: {
  "theme": "base",
  "themeVariables": {
    "fontSize": "28px"
  }
}}%%
graph LR
    classDef form fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#15803d,stroke-width:2px,font-size:24px;
    classDef sum fill:#e0e7ff,stroke:#4338ca,stroke-width:2px,font-size:24px;

    A(Instruction) --> B(Formative Observation)
    B -.->|Immediate Scaffold| A
    B -.->|Document| C(Summative Portfolio)
    
    class A,B form;
    class C sum;

Authentic Observational Assessment: Psychometric Validity

Construct Alignment: Overcoming mandated test failure where suites miss curriculum-embedded play learning (Farber and Merchant 2023; Pyle and Danniels 2017).
Complementary Measurement: Observational regulation tools show low-to-moderate correlations (r = 0.03 to 0.44) with direct testing (McCoy 2019).
Standardized Rubrics: Deploying behaviorally explicit tools to combat rater bias (Veraksa et al. 2025).

Farber & Merchant (2022) identified an “invisible problem” in ECE measurement: state-mandated standardized test suites frequently fail to map onto curriculum-embedded constructs in play, causing authentic learning gains to go completely undetected (Farber and Merchant 2023). Furthermore, McCoy et al. (2022) proved that observational regulation tools correlate only low-to-moderately (r = 0.03 to 0.44) with direct standardized testing (McCoy 2019). This low correlation is not a weakness; it demonstrates that observational assessment captures dynamic, child-in-context interactions that direct testing inherently misses. To resolve the rater-variance issues flagged by Miller-Bains et al. (2017), modern ECE psychometrics utilizes behaviorally explicit rubrics—such as the Play Matrix and PTAR—which achieve high inter-rater reliability without disrupting play (Li et al. 2012; Veraksa et al. 2025; Susman-Stillman et al. 2018).

Targeted and Playful Evaluation

Direct Assessment: Structured, adult-administered tasks evaluating specific, targeted skills (e.g., counting, letter identification) (Whitfield 2025).
Game-Based Assessment: Educational tasks embedded within digital or physical games children naturally enjoy (Whitfield 2025; Hsieh and Wu 2026).
Strategic Triangulation: Balancing direct skill benchmarks with game-based tasks to minimize anxiety and maximize engagement.

Ethical, Valid, and Culturally Responsive Assessment

NAEYC & CAPE Mandates: Requiring assessment to be ethical, valid, reliable, and culturally/linguistically responsive (National Association for the Education of Young Children 2026; National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).
Eliminating Measurement Bias: Accounting for home languages, dialects, and cultural expressions to prevent construct misinterpretation.
Purpose-Built Play Rubrics: Leveraging validated symbolic play tools to evaluate diverse learners equitably (Hsieh and Wu 2026; Montoya-Fernández et al. 2024).

The joint position statement from NAEYC and NAECS/SDE (CAPE) mandates that assessment must be ethical, valid, reliable, and grounded in children’s daily, realistic activities (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003). If a bilingual child is assessed in an unfamiliar language or through culturally foreign scenarios, the score reflects language barriers or unfamiliarity—not true developmental ability. Studies in psychometrics demonstrate that when rubrics are purpose-built for symbolic play contexts—such as Hsieh & Wu’s validated moral reasoning play rubric or the BELADI play battery—they yield high content validity coefficients and equitable developmental data across diverse student populations (Hsieh and Wu 2026; Montoya-Fernández et al. 2024). CAPE explicitly limits ECE assessment to three beneficial purposes: informing teaching, identifying intervention needs, and program improvement (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).

Designing the Curriculum-Assessment Feedback Loop

Closed-Loop Instruction: Using assessment data to continuously adapt classroom environments, schedules, and instructional strategies (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).
Individualized Scaffolding: Tailoring learning experiences to challenge or support children.
Application to your AED16B Portfolio: Using the feedback loop as a theoretical framework to strengthen your poster and reflective write-up.

graph LR
    classDef process fill:#f3f4f6,stroke:#004aad,stroke-width:2px,font-size:24px;
    
    A(Observe Play) --> B(Assess via Rubric)
    B --> C(Adapt Environment/Scaffold)
    C --> A
    
    class A,B,C process;

Collaborative Partnerships

Multidisciplinary Synergy: Combining observation data from primary teachers, family contributions, and specialist insights.
Reciprocal Family Engagement: Sharing growth trajectories transparently and honoring home values, languages, and rituals (National Association for the Education of Young Children 2026; Whitfield 2025).
Centralized Evidence: Pooling diverse data sources into comprehensive portfolios for holistic child profiles (Whitfield 2025; National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).

Practical Application Prep: Setting Up the Simulation

Immediate Transition: Bridging today’s theoretical framework directly into your upcoming instructor-led dramatic play simulation.
Simulated IPLE Modeling: Engaging in a live dramatic play scenario designed as an integrated play learning experience.
Student Role Shift: Step into the dual roles of active player and expert teacher-observer applying live formative assessment.

Observation & Formative Protocols

Target Domain Matrix: Observing language negotiation, mathematical problem-solving, and socio-emotional self-regulation during play (Ministry of Education 2026; Veraksa et al. 2025).
Live Assessment Toolkit: Utilizing rapid anecdotal notes, observational checklists, and open-ended formative questioning prompts.
Reflection & Scaffolding Loop: Analyzing captured play data to formulate immediate instructional scaffolds and evaluate learning outcomes (Pyle et al. 2020).

To guide your upcoming simulation, use this concrete observational protocol. As your peers engage in the dramatic play scenario, focus your observation on three integrated domain targets: First, Language & Communication—note how roles are negotiated and vocabulary is used; Second, Cognition & Early Numeracy—observe how resources, space, and quantitative concepts are managed; Third, Socio-Emotional Regulation—track impulse control and co-operative problem-solving (Ministry of Education 2026; Susman-Stillman et al. 2018; Ernst and Stelley 2024). Use rapid anecdotal jotting and formative questioning prompts. Afterward, we will evaluate how your observed evidence directly informs instructional scaffolding, mirroring the exact reflective analysis required in your AED16B portfolio assignments.

Concrete Observational Rubric Example

NEL Domain Integration: Structural alignment with MOE’s Nurturing Early Learners goals across Social & Emotional Development and Language & Literacy (Ministry of Education 2026).
Behaviorally Explicit Performance Continuum: A 3-tiered developmental rubric (Emerging, Developing, Competent) evaluating role-sustaining, object substitution, and peer negotiation (Veraksa et al. 2025; Pancorbo et al. 2021).
Diagnostic Formative Utility: Providing teachers with real-time indicators to scaffold play progression without interrupting the dramatic narrative.

To answer questions regarding the practical operationalization of integrated assessment, let’s examine this concrete, behaviorally explicit rubric designed for sociodramatic play, anchored in Singapore’s Ministry of Education Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) framework. Notice how macro-level NEL goals—such as “Develop self-awareness and self-regulation” and “Build positive relationships with peers”—are translated into micro-level observable play behaviors. Grounded in Daniil Elkonin’s play levels and Bodrova and Leong’s PRoPELS framework, the rubric uses a 3-tiered continuum: At Level 1 (Emerging), the child engages in brief, self-centered pretend actions with literal props; at Level 2 (Developing), the child adopts a named role, uses substitute objects, and verbally negotiates play rules with peers; at Level 3 (Competent), the child sustains complex, multi-role narratives, uses abstract language or imaginary props, and resolves interpersonal conflicts collaboratively (Roskos 2017; Veraksa et al. 2025; Bodrova and Leong 2003). By using explicit behavioral anchors rather than vague rating scales, this tool provides high diagnostic utility for real-time instructional scaffolding, directly fulfilling NAEYC Accreditation Item A.5.05 (Pancorbo et al. 2021; National Association for the Education of Young Children 2026).

Psychometric Validity of Play-Based Assessment

Construct Divergence & Contextual Capture: Observational regulation tools (e.g., RRSM) show low-to-moderate correlations (r = 0.03 to 0.44) with direct testing, measuring unique child-in-context interactions (McCoy 2019).
Rater Variance vs. Direct Tests: Broad teacher rating systems demonstrate concurrent validity but suffer from high classroom-level intraclass correlations and limited discriminant capacity (Li et al. 2012).
High Reliability of Purpose-Built Tools: Validated play rubrics achieve high inter-rater agreement (ICC > 0.80, High CVC) when behavioral criteria are explicitly defined (Susman-Stillman et al. 2018; Veraksa et al. 2025; Montoya-Fernández et al. 2024).

When colleagues question whether observational play assessments hold psychometric rigor compared to direct testing, we point to compelling empirical data. First, McCoy et al. (2022) evaluated the Regulation-Related Skills Measure (RRSM) and found that observational classroom scores correlated only low-to-moderately (r = 0.03 to 0.44) with direct, adult-administered tests (McCoy 2019). In psychometrics, this low correlation establishes construct divergence—proving that direct testing isolates decontextualized skill capacity, whereas observational tools measure dynamic, child-by-context performance. Second, Miller-Bains et al. (2017) examined Teaching Strategies GOLD at kindergarten entry; while concurrent validity was supported, large intraclass correlations revealed significant rater-level variance, meaning general checklists struggle to discriminate individual skill differences within the same classroom (Li et al. 2012). Third, to overcome this rater variance, modern play psychometrics relies on purpose-built rubrics (Pancorbo et al. 2021; Veraksa et al. 2025). Tools like the Preschool Theatre Arts Rubric (PTAR), the Play Matrix, and the BELADI battery demonstrate high inter-rater agreement (ICC > 0.80, CVC > 0.85), proving that observational tools achieve excellent reliability when behavioral indicators are explicitly specified (Susman-Stillman et al. 2018; Veraksa et al. 2025; Montoya-Fernández et al. 2024). Finally, Farber & Merchant (2022) illustrated the “invisible problem” of standardized testing, where mandated test suites failed to capture genuine social-emotional learning occurring within play-based curricula (Farber and Merchant 2023).

Mitigating Measurement Error and Observer Bias

Eliminating Global Rating Errors: Replacing subjective Likert scales with behaviorally explicit, criterion-referenced rubrics to combat halo effects and central tendency bias (Pancorbo et al. 2021).
Psychometric Calibration Models: Applying Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) to adjust for individual teacher severity and leniency biases (Chien et al. 2014).
Systematic Sampling & Video Calibration: Combining momentary time-sampling, running records, and video-elicited dual-coding to ensure observational stability across settings (Al-Hendawi et al. 2025; Pyle et al. 2022).

A central challenge in observational psychometrics is controlling measurement error stemming from observer bias, halo effects (where a teacher’s overall impression colors specific skill ratings), and rater drift. To ensure observational data remain valid and fair, we employ three evidence-based strategies. First, as highlighted by Pancorbo et al. (2021) and Feriver et al. (2019), we replace global rating scales with behaviorally explicit, criterion-referenced rubrics (Pancorbo et al. 2021; Feriver et al. 2019). When level descriptors specify exact observable actions—such as “negotiates role division using conditional language”—raters do not rely on subjective impressions. Second, in research and large-scale formative systems, we apply Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) (Chien et al. 2014; Sussman et al. 2025). As Chien et al. (2014) demonstrated, adjusting raw observational scores using Rasch rater-severity parameters increased inter-rater agreement from a moderate ICC = 0.61 to a robust ICC = 0.81 (Chien et al. 2014). Third, at the classroom level, teachers implement systematic sampling protocols—such as momentary time-sampling and structured running records—and engage in video-elicited moderation sessions (Al-Hendawi et al. 2025; Pyle et al. 2022). These calibration sessions allow teaching teams to align their interpretation of developmental anchors, neutralizing individual leniency or severity bias.

Alignment of Curriculum Standards and Play Assessment

Macro-Systemic Disconnect: Policy analyses reveal severe fragmentation and limited alignment across state standards, curricula, and assessment systems (Whitaker et al. 2022).
The “Standards-Informed, Play-Embedded” Model: Bridging macro accountability demands with micro classroom practice (Pyle et al. 2020).
Construct-Level Operationalization: Translating standards for moral reasoning and self-regulation into purpose-built symbolic play assessments (Hsieh and Wu 2026; Ernst and Stelley 2024).

Finally, let’s address how macro-level curriculum standards successfully translate into micro-level classroom practice. Whitaker, Jenkins, and Duer (2022) analyzed state ECE systems and discovered widespread fragmentation: state early learning standards, approved curricula, and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) frequently operate in silos, creating administrative confusion for providers (Whitaker et al. 2022). To resolve this systemic misalignment without resorting to drill-and-practice testing, Pyle, DeLuca, and colleagues (2017, 2020, 2022) developed the ‘standards-informed, play-embedded, teacher-observed’ framework (Pyle and Danniels 2017; Pyle et al. 2020, 2022). Under this model, teachers view early learning standards as reference benchmarks rather than rigid scripts. By adopting a “Blended Assessment” stance across a continuum of play, teachers embed assessment directly into learning centers. Empirical studies by Hsieh & Wu (2026) and Ernst & Stelley (2024) demonstrate this alignment in action: macro standards for moral reasoning and self-regulation were operationalized through purpose-built rubrics applied to tabletop puppet theater and naturalistic play (Hsieh and Wu 2026; Ernst and Stelley 2024). This proves that authentic, play-based assessment can satisfy rigorous policy standards while preserving developmentally appropriate practice (Feldman 2010; National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 2003).

References

Al-Hendawi, Maha, Esraa Hussein, and Sughra Darwish. 2025. “Direct Observation Systems for Child Behavior Assessment in Early Childhood Education: A Systematic Literature Review.” Discover Mental Health 5 (February): 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-025-00139-z.

Bodrova, Elena, and Deborah J Leong. 2003. “Chopsticks and Counting Chips: Do Play and Foundational Skills Need to Compete for the Teacher’s Attention in an Early Childhood Classroom?” YC Young Children 58: 10–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42729772.

Chien, Chi-Wen, Clare Scanlon, Sylvia Rodger, and Jodie Copley. 2014. “Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Assessment of Children’s Hand Skills Based on Video Recordings.” British Journal of Occupational Therapy 77 (February): 82–90. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802214X13916969447191.

Ernst, Julie, and Hannah Stelley. 2024. “Supporting Young Children’s Self-Regulation Through Nature-Based Practices in Preschool.” Behavioral Sciences 14 (October): 1013. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111013.

Farber, Matthew, and William Merchant. 2023. “Insights from Investigating Early Childhood Ebooks on Literacy, Cognitive Development, and Social and Emotional Learning Outcomes.” E-Learning and Digital Media 20 (May): 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530221108538.

Feldman, Erika N. 2010. “Benchmarks Curricular Planning and Assessment Framework: Utilizing Standards Without Introducing Standardization.” Early Childhood Education Journal 38 (October): 233–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0398-9.

Feng, Lina, and Jingjing Wang. 2023. “Assessing Preschoolers’ Approaches to Learning in the Chinese Context: A Scale for Teacher-Parent Co-Evaluation.” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (June). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1098506.

Feriver, Şebnem, Refika Olgan, Gaye Teksöz, and Matthias Barth. 2019. “Systems Thinking Skills of Preschool Children in Early Childhood Education Contexts from Turkey and Germany.” Sustainability 11 (March): 1478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051478.

Hsieh, Chia-Yen, and Chia-Chi Wu. 2026. “Promoting Preschoolers’ Moral Reasoning Through Board Games and Peer Discussions: A Mixed-Methods Study.” Sage Open 16 (January). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440261422009.

Józefacka, Natalia M., and Sara A. Moc. 2026. “Assessing Early Self‐regulation in Classroom Contexts: A Screening Tool for Atypical Cognitive Development.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 40 (May). https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70232.

Li, Yan, Jan N. Hughes, Oi-man Kwok, and Hsien-Yuan Hsu. 2012. “Evidence of Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Child, Teacher, and Peer Reports of Teacher–Student Support.” Psychological Assessment 24 (March): 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024481.

McCoy, Dana Charles. 2019. “Measuring Young Children’s Executive Function and Self-Regulation in Classrooms and Other Real-World Settings.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 22 (March): 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00285-1.

Ministry of Education. 2026. Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) Framework. https://www.moe.gov.sg/preschool/curriculum.

Montoya-Fernández, Carlos, Luisa Losada-Puente, Isabel María Gómez-Barreto, and Pedro Gil-Madrona. 2024. “Developmental Play-Based Assessment in Early Childhood Education: A Systematic Review.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 32 (September): 788–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2024.2311100.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. 2026. Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation: Assessment Items 2026.2. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/2026.2_assessment_items.pdf.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). 2003. Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth Through Age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/pscape.pdf.

Pancorbo, Gina, Ricardo Primi, Oliver P. John, Daniel Santos, and Filip De Fruyt. 2021. “Formative Assessment of Social-Emotional Skills Using Rubrics: A Review of Knowns and Unknowns.” Frontiers in Education 6 (November). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.687661.

Pyle, Angela, and Erica Danniels. 2017. “A Continuum of Play-Based Learning: The Role of the Teacher in Play-Based Pedagogy and the Fear of Hijacking Play.” Early Education and Development 28 (April): 274–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771.

Pyle, Angela, Christopher DeLuca, Erica Danniels, and Hanna Wickstrom. 2020. “A Model for Assessment in Play-Based Kindergarten Education.” American Educational Research Journal 57 (December): 2251–92. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220908800.

Pyle, Angela, Christopher DeLuca, Hanna Wickstrom, and Erica Danniels. 2022. “Connecting Kindergarten Teachers’ Play-Based Learning Profiles and Their Classroom Assessment Practices.” Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (November): 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103855.

Roskos, Kathleen A., ed. 2017. Play and Literacy in Early Childhood: Research from Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315089720.

Susman-Stillman, Amy, Michelle Englund, Chloe Webb, and Amanda Grenell. 2018. “Reliability and Validity of a Measure of Preschool Children’s Theatre Arts Skills: The Preschool Theatre Arts Rubric.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45 (October): 249–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.001.

Sussman, Joshua, Karen Draney, and Mark Wilson. 2025. “Cultural Sensitivity of Early Childhood Assessments Based on Learning Progressions: A Rasch Person Fit Analysis.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 37 (May): 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-025-09453-0.

Veraksa, Nikolay, Nikolay Veresov, Vera Sukhikh, and Valeriya Plotnikova. 2025. “Observing and Assessing Role Play in Early Childhood: Evaluation of the Play Matrix Tool.” Frontiers in Psychology 16 (December). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1614161.

Whitaker, Anamarie A, Jade M Jenkins, and Jennifer K Duer. 2022. “Standards, Curriculum, and Assessment in Early Childhood Education: Examining Alignment Across Multiple State Systems.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 58 (January): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.07.008.

Whitfield, Barbara. 2025. Assessment in Early Childhood Education: A Holistic Approach for Today’s Classrooms. https://teachingstrategies.com/blog/assessment-in-early-childhood-education-a-holistic-approach-for-todays-classrooms/.