Measuring Child Growth & Development in Preschool: Direct Assessment vs. Observational Assessment
When Assessment Tells Different Stories: What the NIEER RCT Study Can Teach Us About Measuring What Matters
One of the most nuanced and potentially confusing findings from the recent NIEER RCT study on The Creative Curriculum is this: children showed stronger gains in development on GOLD, a curriculum-aligned formative assessment tool, than on direct, summative assessments. For some, that raises an immediate question: “Don’t all measures of child outcomes tell the same story?”
The short answer is no. And, more importantly, they shouldn’t.
This finding is not a concern but an opportunity to deepen how we think about the use of assessment tools and data in early childhood. In fact, in all of education, how we measure matters just as much as what we measure.
Why Do Different Assessments Produce Different Results?
Not all assessments are designed to capture the same kinds of learning. Direct assessments—often administered one-on-one in structured settings—are designed to measure specific skills under controlled conditions. They are useful for standardization and comparison. Observational assessments, by contrast, capture what children know and can do in the context of real learning experiences—during play, routines, and interactions with peers and adults. These are not competing approaches. They are answering different questions.
- Direct assessment asks, “Can the child demonstrate this skill right now, in this context?”
- Observational assessment asks, “How does the child use this skill in meaningful, everyday situations over time?”
Both matter. But they do not—and should not—produce identical results (read more about different assessment types in this blog post).
On a more personal note, as a self-taught photographer, I tend to reach for photography metaphors when I’m trying to make sense of complex ideas. This is one I keep coming back to.
Imagine trying to understand a child’s development from a single photograph. You capture a moment: a child sits at a table, carefully writing their name. And in that instant, everything looks right—the letters are all there, in the correct order, maybe even neatly formed. If you didn’t know better, you might conclude: this child can write their name.
But a photograph doesn’t tell you what came before or after that moment.
It doesn’t show the earlier attempts—letters scattered across the page, some reversed, some invented, sometimes just the first letter repeated again and again. It doesn’t show the pauses, the erasing, the looking to a teacher for reassurance. It doesn’t show whether that “perfect” version can be repeated tomorrow, or whether it was pieced together slowly, letter by letter, with quiet prompting just outside the frame.
A single image can be accurate—and still incomplete.
Now imagine setting the camera aside and watching that same child over time. You see them during play, in conversation, in moments of frustration and breakthrough. You notice how they start with the first letter of their name long before the others appear. You see them experiment with order, spacing, and form. You watch as something that was once effortful becomes more fluid, more confident, more their own.
Over time, you don’t just see what they can do. You begin to see how they come to do it. That is the difference between many direct assessments and observational assessments. One captures a moment—sometimes a very compelling one. The other captures a trajectory. And it helps explain one of the more nuanced findings from the recent NIEER RCT study.
What Does Observational Assessment Reveal?
When children show stronger gains in an observational system like GOLD, it is often because we are seeing something that direct assessments are not designed to capture:
- growth that unfolds over time, not in a single moment;
- skills expressed through interaction, language, and problem-solving;
- the integration of development across domains; and
- the ways children apply learning in authentic contexts.
In other words, we are seeing learning in use, not just learning in isolation. And that distinction matters deeply for early childhood.
The use of assessment data as a tool for teaching makes it a critical part of instruction. When a child’s learning, captured in real time, informs how a teacher responds to support that child’s continued learning and development, it creates a feedback loop. That loop keeps the teaching relevant to the child’s current knowledge, skills, and abilities while stretching them with new learning. An effective feedback loop enables more individualized instruction, earlier identification of needs, and more intentional teaching decisions. Ultimately, it results in stronger outcomes for children.
Reframing the Question
Instead of asking, “Which assessment is more accurate?,” a more productive question is this: “What kind of learning is each assessment designed to reveal?” For early childhood leaders, this shift is critical, because our desired outcome is not simply that children can perform on a task in a controlled setting. We are working toward ambitious goals at the child, class, and program level:
- improved child outcomes,
- better instructional planning,
- more individualized instruction,
- earlier identification of learning needs,
- stronger family communication,
- better visibility into child progress,
- more intentional teaching,
- improved school readiness,
- more consistent classroom quality,
- better program decision-making,
- standards-aligned teaching and assessment,
- stronger teacher confidence, and
- more meaningful documentation of learning.
These robust outcomes require more than a snapshot of a child’s learning. They require a continuous, connected understanding of development.
What Does This Mean for Leaders?
For leaders, the takeaway is not to choose one type of assessment over another, but to be clear about purpose and alignment. Ask questions to determine your goals for assessment.
- What do we want to understand about children’s development?
- How will this information be used?
- Does the assessment reflect how young children actually learn?
And, always remember what is perhaps the most important question.
- Does this approach support teachers in making better instructional decisions?
The value of assessment is not in the data itself. It is in what that data enables educators to do next.
A More Coherent View of Child Outcomes
When we see differences across measures, it is not a contradiction. It is a reminder that child development is complex, and no single tool captures it fully. Direct assessments can provide useful benchmarks. Observational assessments provide insight into how learning unfolds in context. Together, they can offer a more complete picture of child outcomes.
Ultimately, if our goal is to support meaningful learning, responsive teaching, and strong developmental trajectories, we must ensure that our assessment systems are aligned to those goals.
Closing Thought
The NIEER findings don’t suggest that one measure is right and another is wrong. They suggest something more important: when we measure learning in ways that reflect how children actually learn, we see more of what children can truly do. And that is the kind of evidence that should guide our decisions.
About the Author
Nicol Russell is our Chief Academic Officer here at Teaching Strategies, where she oversees the development of effective implementation and change management solutions for school administrators and early childhood educators who leverage our groundbreaking products.
Nicol has worked as an early childhood teacher, school administrator, Head Start state collaboration director, and state-level administrator for the Arizona Department of Education. Her research interests include studying the implementation practices of early learning programs and considering ways to create more equitable opportunities for all children and educators.
Fun Fact: Nicol has a 10-year-old, and one of their favorite shared activities is singing karaoke!
Increase Teacher Retention. Improve Outcomes.
Check out how the NEW NIEER research proves our Teaching Strategies Ecosystem is proven to boost teacher retention and well-being, and child growth
Frequently Asked Questions
The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) is an independent organization that studies early childhood education programs and policies. It conducts research to understand what drives strong child outcomes and high-quality preschool experiences.
Participating in a NIEER RCT study means contributing to a research-based evaluation of early childhood programs, including teaching practices and child outcomes. This work helps identify evidence-based approaches that improve program quality and school readiness.
Observation is how teachers gather information by watching children during everyday experiences, while assessment is the process of interpreting that information to understand development. Observation-based assessment brings the two together to measure learning in real, meaningful contexts.
Ongoing assessment captures children’s development over time, rather than relying on a single moment. This approach provides a more accurate view of progress and helps teachers respond with more intentional, individualized instruction.
Assessment helps teachers understand each child’s strengths, needs, and developmental progress. With that insight, they can plan instruction that is more responsive, targeted, and aligned to how each child learns best.
