Direct observation systems for child behavior assessment in early childhood education: a systematic literature review
Keep a fixed DOS for big-picture data and a blank one for kid-specific details—both are evidence-based.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Al-Hendawi et al. (2025) read every paper they could find on watching kids in pre-K. They kept only studies that used direct observation systems, or DOS for short.
They sorted each tool into two piles: fixed forms like CLASS, and homemade checklists built for one class or one study.
What they found
Fixed DOS give you numbers you can trust across rooms and years. Custom DOS catch the tiny details that matter in one setting.
Both kinds work well for preschoolers with ADHD or other needs.
How this fits with other research
Navas et al. (2012) built a fixed form, the DABS, and showed it spots delays with the same accuracy across kids. That backs the review’s point: fixed tools travel well.
Aikat et al. (2025) went the opposite way. They used an iPad app, SenseToKnow, to watch each child’s eyes and face. The app is a custom DOS that captures autism signs a paper form would miss. The review says this flexible route is just as valid.
Hawkins (1979) warned us to pick the tool after we know the job. The 2025 review turns that old idea into a simple rule: choose CLASS or inCLASS when you need broad data, build your own DOS when you need the local story.
Why it matters
Monday morning, stop wrestling between “one true form” and “my own checklist.” Keep CLASS loaded for quick classroom snapshots. When a child shows odd sensory or social moments, open a blank ABC sheet and write the behaviors you actually see. You now have science on both sides.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Run a five-minute CLASS sweep, then clip on a custom ABC sheet for any child who shows off-task or sensory behavior.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This systematic literature review critically assessed the use of direct observation systems (DOSs) in early childhood educational research, highlighting their role in the objective and systematic evaluation of child behavior and classroom dynamics. Our comprehensive analysis distinguishes between standardized and non-standardized observation systems regarding their applications, target groups, and capabilities for assessing diverse behavioral constructs in early childhood education settings. We synthesized data from 88 empirical studies, including standardized (47 studies) and non-standardized (41 studies) approaches. While the standardized DOS was defined as that which was consistently replicated across multiple research projects, the non-standardized DOS was tailored to the unique requirements of individual studies. Our findings suggest that while the standardized DOS offers a reliable method for generalized behavioral assessment, the non-standardized DOS is also widely and effectively used because it provides the flexibility required for more targeted behavioral evaluations. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) and the Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS) represent commonly used standardized tools, while non-standardized systems demonstrate particular strength in context-specific applications. The majority of the research was situated within pre-elementary contexts, with standardized studies having a median sample size of 158 compared to 136 non-standardized studies. Gender representation across the studies was notably equitable. A significant portion of related research has focused on populations at-risk of or diagnosed with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBDs) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), accounting for 59.6% of standardized studies and 80.5% of non-standardized studies. DOS predominantly addressed emotional regulation (42%) and externalizing behaviors (21%). The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44192-025-00139-z.
Discover Mental Health, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s44192-025-00139-z