Search

We aimed to evaluate the validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires Edition 3 (ASQ‐3) and the MacArthur communicative development inventory (CDI) as a screening measure for children at risk of language development delay in western rural China, by comparing them to the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID‐III). We administered the BSID‐III on 1,079 children (aged 8–24 months) and administered the ASQ‐3 and the CDI to their caregivers. We found a significant, low‐to‐moderate correlation between the three scales. Further, correlation strength increased with age of the child and was stronger when the mother was the primary caregiver. We also found that the sensitivity and specificity of the ASQ‐3 ranged widely. The overall findings suggest that the ASQ‐3 and the CDI may not be very accurate screening tools for identifying language development delays in children, especially those under 17 months or whose primary caregiver is not their mother. Highlights: We evaluated the accuracy of language sections of three scales (CDI, ASQ‐3 and BSID‐III) for rural children in western China.Multiple methods were utilized and showed a significant, low‐to‐moderate correlation between the three scales.Our findings revealed that both ASQ‐3 and CDI are not accurate screening tools for identifying language development delays in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate over whether boarding school is beneficial for students still exists in both developing and developed countries. In rural China, as a result of a national school merger program that began in 2001, the number of boarding students has increased dramatically. Little research has been done, however, to measure how boarding status may be correlated with nutrition, health and educational outcomes. In this paper, we compare the outcomes of boarding to those of non‐boarding students using a large, aggregate dataset that includes 59 rural counties across five provinces in China. We find that for all outcomes boarding students perform worse than non‐boarding students. Despite these differences, the absolute levels of all outcomes are low for both boarding and non‐boarding students, indicating a need for new policies that will target all rural students regardless of their boarding status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]