algorithms

Article

Exploring Early Learning Challenges in Children Utilizing

Statistical and Explainable Machine Learning
Mithila Akter Mim 1 , M. R. Khatun 1 , Muhammad Minoar Hossain 1,2 , Wahidur Rahman 2,3 and Arslan Munir 4, *

1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Bangladesh University, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh;
[email protected] (M.A.M.); [email protected] (M.R.K.); [email protected] (M.M.H.)
2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University,
Tangail 1902, Bangladesh; [email protected]
3 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Uttara University, Dhaka 1230, Bangladesh
4 Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: To mitigate future educational challenges, the early childhood period is critical
for cognitive development, so understanding the factors influencing child learning abilities
is essential. This study investigates the impact of parenting techniques, sociodemographic
characteristics, and health conditions on the learning abilities of children under five years
old. Our primary goal is to explore the key factors that influence children’s learning abilities.
For our study, we utilized the 2019 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) dataset in
Bangladesh. Using statistical analysis, we identified the key factors that affect children’s
learning capability. To ensure proper analysis, we used extensive data preprocessing,
feature manipulation, and model evaluation. Furthermore, we explored robust machine
learning (ML) models to analyze and predict the learning challenges faced by children.
These include logistic regression (LRC), decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN),
random forest (RF), gradient boosting (GB), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and bagging
classification models. Out of these, GB and XGB, with 10-fold cross-validation, achieved
an impressive accuracy of 95%, F1-score of 95%, and receiver operating characteristic area
under the curve (ROC AUC) of 95%. Additionally, to interpret the model outputs and
Academic Editors: Antonio
Sarasa Cabezuelo and María
explore influencing factors, we used explainable AI (XAI) techniques like SHAP and LIME.
Estefanía Avilés Mariño Both statistical analysis and XAI interpretation revealed key factors that influence children’s
Received: 24 November 2024
learning difficulties. These include harsh disciplinary practices, low socioeconomic status,
Revised: 24 December 2024 limited maternal education, and health-related issues. These findings offer valuable insights
Accepted: 31 December 2024 to guide policy measures to improve educational outcomes and promote holistic child
Published: 4 January 2025 development in Bangladesh and similar contexts.
Citation: Mim, M.A.; Khatun, M.R.;
Hossain, M.M.; Rahman, W.; Munir, A. Keywords: child development; Bangladesh multiple indicator cluster surveys (MICS);
Exploring Early Learning Challenges machine learning; explainable AI; SHAP; LIME
in Children Utilizing Statistical and
Explainable Machine Learning.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20. https://
doi.org/10.3390/a18010020
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Children’s learning capacities and psychological development are significantly influ-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
enced by the parenting practices and sociodemographic features in their environment. The
distributed under the terms and impact of good relationships, engagement, and participation between parents and children
conditions of the Creative Commons on academic achievement is positive [1]. This engagement involves things like reading
Attribution (CC BY) license aloud to kids, guiding studies, and staying in touch with them, all of which are essential for
(https://creativecommons.org/
creating a positive learning environment. The long-term effects of parenting practices such
licenses/by/4.0/).

Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 https://doi.org/10.3390/a18010020

Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 2 of 27

as friendly manners and flexibility significantly influence children’s cognitive development

and academic performance [2]. Furthermore, different racial and ethnic communities have
distinct policies concerning the extent of parental engagement with children, which greatly
impacts the growth and development of young children [3]. Sociodemographic factors,
such as parental education level and socioeconomic status (SES), also significantly influence
children’s learning patterns. Moreover, the provision of mental and physical healthcare for
children has a direct impact on their brain and cognitive development, highlighting the
importance of home environments [4,5]. Additionally, households of higher SES generally
enjoy superior access to educational resources and opportunities as well as good healthcare
services, leading to enhanced learning outcomes for children [6]. Researchers are exten-
sively exploring the influence of parenting styles, ensuring privilege, mental and physical
care, and awareness of children’s learning abilities.
Previous studies have demonstrated the application of a variety of methods in child
development research. Researchers diagnose mental health problems and analyze par-
enting techniques to identify learning difficulties. Several research works have examined
the application of machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict learning difficulties and
variables influencing school-aged children’s and college students’ academic performance.
To diagnose learning difficulties in kids, another study [7] used artificial neural network
(ANN) and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers. The study emphasized the innovative
application of ML to accurately identify learning disabilities. Researchers used supervised
ML algorithms [8] to uncover the reasons behind college students’ poor academic per-
formance. That provides advice to help struggling students to do better. Additionally,
researchers have used ML approaches to identify mental health issues in children and
adolescents, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression.
Multiple researchers [9,10] have employed ML models to forecast depression and ADHD
in children, attaining superior classification accuracy and emphasizing the possibility of
timely identification and remediation. Additionally, researchers [11] developed and eval-
uated ML-based prognosis tools to identify learning difficulties among students, aiming
to improve early detection and intervention strategies. Furthermore, researchers used
ML models to predict ADHD by analyzing prefrontal brain activity, underscoring the
importance of neurophysiological data in diagnostic prediction [12]. Early detection is
essential for prompt assistance and intervention in cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
ML techniques for early ASD detection have been the subject of several studies [13,14].
These studies used a variety of classifiers, including random forest (RF), logistic regression
(LR), and support vector machine (SVM), to create precise prediction models based on
physiological and behavioral data. The results imply that ML methods can improve the
accuracy and effectiveness of ASD diagnosis.
Recent advancements in ML have significantly improved ASD detection by using
SVM, and LR achieved 100% accuracy for children and 97.14% for adults, respectively,
and ANN also showed promise, reaching 94.24% accuracy with optimized hyperparame-
ters [15]. Additionally, a study analyzing toddlers using six classification models, including
LR, reported a perfect accuracy score of 100% in ASD detection [16]. Beyond ASD detec-
tion, research has also examined the influence of parenting practices and other factors on
children’s development. Studies highlight that parenting style, gender, and socioeconomic
background play a significant role in academic achievement, with authoritative parent-
ing being particularly crucial for fostering successful educational outcomes [17]. Again,
comparative studies have investigated the effectiveness of ML techniques in predicting
children’s educational activities compared to traditional methods [18,19]. These analyses
highlight the benefits of ML algorithms for identifying important factors and improving
prediction accuracy.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 3 of 27

The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF conducted the Multiple Indicator
Cluster Surveys (MICS) in 2019. This survey collected a comprehensive dataset that in-
cludes information on child welfare, household characteristics, and parenting practices
in Bangladesh [20]. Employing this information provides an opportunity to explore the
multifaceted relationships between the sociodemographic characteristics, parenting styles,
and educational achievement of Bangladeshi children, which can then be applied to sim-
ilar studies. In addition, to analyze and forecast a wide range of outcomes regarding
child development and education, ML approaches have become an increasingly powerful
tool [21,22]. Researchers have the potential to use ML algorithms on the MICS 2019 dataset
to gain valuable insights into the factors affecting children’s learning skill comparisons.
Moreover, they can apply these insights to shape interventions and policies that aim to
enhance opportunities for children in Bangladesh.
The literature review shows how ML can predict academic performances, learning
difficulties, mental health illnesses, and parenting styles in child development studies.
These studies highlight the complicated relationship between individual, familial, and
environmental influences on children. Our research is motivated by the critical need to
address and understand challenges in early childhood development and education using
advanced computational techniques. Our literature review revealed a research gap, as
no previous studies have concentrated on identifying and forecasting the influencing
factors for learning difficulties among Bangladeshi children. While ML has been widely
used in child development studies in other countries, such as Oman, Australia, and the
U.S., there has been limited exploration of early childhood learning outcomes in the
Bangladeshi context. Our study addresses this gap by applying ML techniques to the
MICS 2019 dataset, which uniquely captures the influence of sociodemographic factors,
parenting styles, and children’s learning abilities in Bangladesh. This research highlights
the importance of leveraging local data to uncover insights specific to Bangladesh’s context
and social landscape, providing the foundation for targeted interventions. In addition to
applying ML techniques, our study integrates explainable AI (XAI) methods like SHAP
and LIME, which offer a novel transparent approach to understanding early childhood
learning difficulties in Bangladesh. By incorporating XAI methods, our approach not
only improves the interpretability of ML models but also identifies underlying causes of
learning difficulties. These findings offer valuable insights for policymaking to improve
early childhood education. The highlights of our objective are as follows:
• Employ statistical analysis to investigate the key factors influencing early learning
among children under the age of five;
• Apply different ML models to forecast learning difficulties in children based on the
selected features;
• Utilize XAI methods like SHAP and LIME to explain how different factors influence
children learning difficulties. These insights will help guide policies to improve
education and overall development in early childhood.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a comprehensive
overview of the materials and methods used in this study. It includes details about the
dataset, statistical analysis, and ML algorithms that we employed and the criteria used for
evaluating performance. Section 3 presents the results and discussion. Section 4 presents a
comparison with previous works, while Section 5 concludes this study.

2. Materials and Methods

In this research, we investigated parenting practices and sociodemographic factors that
influence children’s learning skills using the MICS 2019 dataset. At first, we preprocessed
the dataset to prepare it for statistical analysis and machine learning model fit. Afterward,
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 4 of 28

Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 4 of 27

preprocessed the dataset to prepare it for statistical analysis and machine learning model
fit. Afterward,
we evaluated theweresults
evaluated
based the
onresults based on the
the performance performance
parameters. parameters.
Figure Figure
1 shows the 1
step-
shows the
by-step step-by-step
process involvedprocess involved
in analyzing in analyzing
the impact the factors
of various impact on
of children’s
various factors on
learning
children’s learning abilities, starting from data collection and preprocessing, moving
abilities, starting from data collection and preprocessing, moving through specific analytical
through
steps, andspecific
endinganalytical steps, andanalysis.
with an integrated ending with an integrated analysis.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Workflow diagram for
Workflow diagram for analyzing
analyzing parenting
parenting practices
practices and
and sociodemographic
sociodemographic factors
factors on
on
children’s learning abilities.
children’s learning abilities.

2.1. MICS Dataset

2.1. MICS Dataset
The
The Bangladesh
Bangladesh Bureau
Bureau of of Statistics
Statistics and
and the
the Ministry
Ministry of of Planning,
Planning, with
with assistance
assistance
from
from UNICEF,
UNICEF, conducted
conducted the the MICS
MICS 2019
2019 in
in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh. The The survey
survey comprises
comprises clusters
clusters
covering health, education, nutrition, water and sanitation, child health,
covering health, education, nutrition, water and sanitation, child health, and socioeco-and socioeconomic
factors. The research
nomic factors. population
The research estimated
population several several
estimated indicators on the status
indicators on theofstatus
children and
of chil-
women nationwide, in both urban and rural areas, in eight divisions and
dren and women nationwide, in both urban and rural areas, in eight divisions and sixty- sixty-four districts.
Initially, the total
four districts. number
Initially, theof household
total number samples was 64,000.
of household samplesThewasreport BBS
64,000. and
The UNICEF
report BBS
Bangladesh 2019 provides a comprehensive explanation of the survey
and UNICEF Bangladesh 2019 provides a comprehensive explanation of the survey meth- methodology, which
includes
odology, details on the calculation
which includes details onof thethe sample size.
calculation Thesample
of the datasetsize.
used in dataset
The this research is
used in
publicly available
this research from the
is publicly MICS 2019,
available from with permission
the MICS frompermission
2019, with the UNICEF MICS
from theteam,
UNICEFand
adheres to ethical standards, ensuring participant anonymity through
MICS team, and adheres to ethical standards, ensuring participant anonymity through de- de-identification
and aggregation.
identification and To obtain access
aggregation. to the access
To obtain datasettoinitially, we initially,
the dataset had to obtain
we hadpermission
to obtain
from the UNICEF MICS team. Thus, we sent them an email
permission from the UNICEF MICS team. Thus, we sent them an email explaining explaining our study plans,
our
and in response, they gave us a link to access the dataset. Furthermore
study plans, and in response, they gave us a link to access the dataset. Furthermore we we addressed
potential
addressedmodel biases
potential by selecting
model biases byfeatures based
selecting on statistical
features based onrelevance
statisticaland employing
relevance and
XAI techniques for transparency, fairness, and interpretability. This approach helps identify
and mitigate biases, ensuring robustness in the findings.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 5 of 27

2.2. Data Cleaning and Preprocessing

The MICS 2019 dataset encompasses various clusters with different domains. Among
these, we chose the children’s health (ch) dataset because it supported all the necessary
domains for determining the learning skills of children under five years old. Initially, the
dataset contained 24,686 samples with 346 features covering various sociodemographic,
health, and behavioral aspects related to children and their families. However, not all fea-
tures were directly relevant to understanding early childhood learning difficulties. Initially,
data cleaning and preprocessing were performed to exclude irrelevant variables, such as
identifiers and redundant features, as well as features with a high percentage of missing
values. Then, we selected all possible features that linked to early childhood learning out-
comes, such as parenting behaviors, maternal education, and child health metrics. We also
focused on features that were most relevant to the target variable to ensure the inclusion.
After careful consideration, we identified 19 features that demonstrated statistical signif-
icance, predictive power, and alignment with domain-specific knowledge. This process
involved evaluating the importance of each feature, checking Pearson correlations, and of
the most significant ones for model accuracy [23,24]. Subsequently, we removed samples
with missing values in the target variable, resulting in a dataset of 14,058 samples. Further
refinement involved dropping samples with “Don’t know” or “No response” values, result-
ing in 14,044 samples. Furthermore, because addressing missing data points is critical for
reliable model predictions, we employed different strategies to fill in missing values based
on the feature data type [25]. For categorical features that represent non-numeric data,
we filled missing values with the mode value. We imputed missing values for numerical
features using the mean value. Afterward, duplicate entries were identified and removed
from the dataset, resulting in a reduction to 13,821 unique samples. Next, we converted fea-
tures with mixed or inconsistent data types to appropriate numerical formats (float, integer,
or string) according to their intended meaning. Outliers, which can skew model results
significantly, were identified and removed using the interquartile range (IQR) method [26].
Finally, we obtained a clean and well-organized dataset comprising 13,274 samples.
After repeated statistical analysis and data preprocessing, we chose the 10 most signif-
icant features out of 19. Table 1 describes the lists of selected variables or features. Out of
10 variables, 9 are independent variables, and 1 is a dependent variable. The independent
variables include different factors related to the child, household, and parenting practices.
The information collected includes numerical values like the child’s weight (Child’s_weight)
and weight-for-age percentile (Weight_age_P). It also includes categorical variables
that indicate disciplinary actions taken by parents (Took_away_privileges, Shook_child,
Beat_hard, Called_dumb_lazy), the child’s sex, wealth index quintile (Wealth_index), and
the mother’s education level (Mother’s_education). The disciplinary action variables
(Removed_privileges, Shook_child, Beat_hard, Called_dumb_lazy) represent different be-
haviors relevant to parenting practices. However, the dependent variable “Learning_skill”
indicates whether or not the child has learning difficulties compared to other children of
the same age. We combined these variables to create a comprehensive dataset to explore
the child’s learning difficulties based on the relationship between parenting practices,
sociodemographic factors, and children’s learning outcomes.
The MICS 2019 dataset is unbalanced because learning difficulties in children under
five are relatively lower compared to those without such difficulties. This imbalance is
a common characteristic of large-scale datasets dealing with minority outcomes, as such
cases naturally occur less frequently. Factors like underreporting by parents, limited
awareness of early developmental challenges, and disparities in access to health and
education services further contribute to this imbalance. The implications of this imbalance
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 6 of 27

have been recognized, and appropriate measures were considered to address its effects on
analysis and predictions.

Table 1. Definition of variables or features list.

Independent Variables
MICS Variables Variables Description Values Data Type
UCD2A Removed_privileges Took away privileges YES, NO Categorical
UCD2C Shook_child Shook child YES, NO Categorical
UCD2K Beat_ hard Beat child as hard as one could YES, NO Categorical
HL4 Sex Sex MALE, FEMALE Categorical
Richest, Fourth, Second,
windex5 Wealth_index Wealth index quintile Categorical
Poorest, Middle
Higher secondary+,
welevel Mother’s_education Mother’s education Primary, Secondary, Categorical
Pre-primary or none
UCD2H Called_dumb_lazy Called child dumb and lazy YES, NO Categorical
AN4 Child’s_weight Child’s weight (kilograms) 1.1–35.8 kg Numerical
WAP Weight_age_P Weight-for-age percentile 0.0–89.5 Numerical
Dependent Variables
MICS variables Variable Description Values Data Type
Compared with children of the
NO DIFFICULTY, HAS
UCF17 Learning_skill same age, child has difficulty Categorical
DIFFICULTY
learning things

Figure 2 presents six grouped bar charts comparing the count of children with and
without learning difficulties across various categories. Blue bars represent children without
learning difficulties, while red bars indicate children with learning difficulties. The charts
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 show differences in experiences and demographics, highlighting factors and patterns that
7 of 28
might contribute to learning difficulties.

Figure2.2.Analysis
Figure Analysisof
of categorical
categorical features.
features.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 7 of 27

The distribution of the variables Child’s_weight and Weight_age_P was examined

using density plots and boxplots to identify skewness, central tendencies, and outliers in
Figure 3a,b. For Weight_age_P, the density plot revealed a highly right-skewed distribution,
with values concentrated near zero and a long tail extending toward higher values. The
boxplot confirmed this pattern, showing a narrow interquartile range (IQR) and numerous
outliers above the upper whisker. To address this skewness and reduce the influence of
outliers, a log transformation was applied, which stabilized variance and improved data
symmetry. In contrast, the Child’s_weight variable exhibited an approximately symmetric
distribution, as seen in both the density plot and boxplot. The IQR captured most of the
data, with the median centrally located. Although a few outliers were observed outside
the whiskers, their impact on the overall distribution was minimal, and no transformation
Figure 2. Analysis of categorical features.
was required.

(a)

(b)

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Analysis
Analysis of
of numerical
numerical features
features (a)
(a) Child’s_weight
Child’s_weight and
and (b)
(b) Weight_age_P.
Weight_age_P.

2.3. Feature
2.3. Feature Importance
Importance
The Figure 4, derived using the RF model, highlights the most influential factors for
prediction of Learning_skill. “Weight_age_P” and “Child’s_weight” are the most signif-
icant features, showing the highest impact. “Mother’s_education” and “Wealth_index”
also contribute notably but to a lesser extent. Other factors such as “Sex”, “Shook_child”,
“Called_dumb_lazy”, “Removed_privileges”, and “Beat_hard” show relatively lower im-
portance in influencing the model’s output.
 prediction of Learning_skill. “Weight_age_P” and “Child’s_weight” are the most signifi-
cant features, showing the highest impact. “Mother’s_education” and “Wealth_index”
also contribute notably but to a lesser extent. Other factors such as “Sex”, “Shook_child”,
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 “Called_dumb_lazy”, “Removed_privileges”, and “Beat_hard” show relatively lower im-
8 of 27
portance in influencing the model’s output.

Figure 4.
Figure Feature importance
4. Feature importance for
for predicting
predicting learning
learning skill.
skill.

2.4. Feature Engineering

2.4. Feature Engineering
Feature engineering is an important part of getting data ready for analysis and mod-
Feature engineering is an important part of getting data ready for analysis and mod-
eling. During this step, we used different methods to explore important patterns in data
eling. During this step, we used different methods to explore important patterns in data
and make our predictions robust. First, we labeled or binned [27] the UCF17 feature, which
and make our predictions robust. First, we labeled or binned [27] the UCF17 feature,
encapsulates assessments regarding a child’s learning difficulties. We carefully partitioned
which encapsulates assessments regarding a child’s learning difficulties. We carefully par-
this categorical feature into two distinct classes: “NO DIFFICULTY” and “HAS DIFFI-
titioned this categorical feature into two distinct classes: “NO DIFFICULTY” and “HAS
CULTY”, which provided a clear delineation for subsequent analysis. Furthermore, the
DIFFICULTY”, which provided a clear delineation for subsequent analysis. Furthermore,
categorical features were subjected to label encoding using a technique [28].
the categorical features were subjected to label encoding using a technique [28].
To prepare the data for fitting into an ML model, Table 2 displays the numerical
To prepare the data for fitting into an ML model, Table 2 displays the numerical rep-
representation of categorical variables. The table shows that we labeled features like taking
resentation of categorical variables. The table shows that we labeled features like taking
away privileges, shaking or beating the child, and calling the child dumb or lazy with
away privileges, shaking or beating the child, and calling the child dumb or lazy with YES
YES = 1 and NO = 2. In addition, we classified gender as follows: male is represented
= 1 and NO = 2. In addition, we classified gender as follows: male is represented by the
by the number 1, and female is represented by the number 2. The wealth index is coded
number 1, and female is represented by the number 2. The wealth index is coded on a
on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the poorest and 5 representing the richest. The
scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the poorest and 5 representing the richest. The mother’s
mother’s education level is classified on a scale of 0 to 3, ranging from pre-primary or no
education level is classified on a scale of 0 to 3, ranging from pre-primary or no education
education to higher secondary education. We also labeled the child’s learning skills as
to higher secondary education. We also labeled the child’s learning skills as NO DIFFI-
NO DIFFICULTY = 0 and HAVE DIFFICULTY = 1.
CULTY = 0 and HAVE DIFFICULTY = 1.
Table 2. Numerical Labeling of Categorical Variables.
Table 2. Numerical Labeling of Categorical Variables.
Variables Assigned Numerical Values
Variables
Removed_privileges Assigned
YES = Numerical
1, NO = 2 Values
Removed_privileges
Shook_child YES
YES = 1,=NO1, NO
=2 =2
Shook_child
Beat_hard YES = 1, NO = 2 = 2
YES = 1, NO
Beat_hard
Sex MALEYES = 1, NO==22
= 1, FEMALE
Sex
Wealth_index MALE = 1, FEMALE
Poorest = 1, Second = 2, Middle =3, Fourth ==4,2Richest = 5
Mother’s_education Pre-primary or none = 0, Primary = 1, Secondary = 2, Higher Secondary = 3
Called_dumb_lazy YES = 1, NO = 2
Learning_skill NO DIFFICULTY = 0, HAVE DIFFICULTY = 1

Furthermore, to handle the problem of class imbalance in our target variable, we

used a mix of techniques. We balanced the representation of different classes in our
dataset by adding more samples to the minority class using SMOTE (Synthetic Minority
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 9 of 27

Oversampling Technique) and reducing the number of samples in the majority class with
RandomUnderSampler [29,30]. This balancing made our analysis and modeling more
reliable as well as helped to prevent any biases that might result from one class being more
dominant than the others.

2.5. Statistical Measurements

In statistical analysis, understanding the relationship between variables depends upon
several key metrics [31]. Together, the metrics odds ratio (OR), p-value, and 95% confidence
interval (CI) provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the strength, significance,
and precision of the relationships observed in the data. The p-value is a statistical measure
that indicates whether the relationship between an independent variable and whether
the dependent variable is statistically significant. It helps to decide whether to reject the
null hypothesis and thus plays a fundamental role in hypothesis testing. A low p-value
(typically ≤ 0.05) indicates a significant association between the independent variable and
the dependent variable. On the other hand, a high p-value (>0.05) indicates no significant
association between the independent variable and the dependent variable. The OR is a
crucial measure of association, indicating the odds of an event occurring in one group
compared to another, whereas odds help to elucidate how likely an event is to happen
compared to not happening. An OR greater than 1 indicates increased odds, an OR less
than 1 indicates decreased odds, and an OR equal to 1 indicates no effect. The 95% CI
further aids in understanding this precision. If the OR’s 95% CI does not include 1, it
suggests a significant effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. If the
95% CI for an OR does not include 1, it suggests the result is statistically significant.

2.6. ML Models
Each ML model offers unique methodologies, algorithms, and mathematical formu-
lations. We employed traditional machine learning models combined with ensemble
techniques. A brief description of each model is presented below.
Decision trees (DT) are hierarchical structures that recursively split the data based
on informative features at each node, aiming to maximize information gain or minimize
impurity. At each node, the decision rule selects the attribute that best divides the data.
The process continues until a stopping criterion is met, resulting in leaf nodes representing
the final class predictions. The splitting criteria often include measures like Gini impurity
or information gain [32].
Random forests (RF) are ensemble learning methods that aggregate predictions from
multiple decision trees, each trained on random subsets of the data and features. By aver-
aging or voting the predictions of individual trees, random forests improve generalization
and reduce overfitting. Each decision tree in the forest operates independently, making
predictions based on its subset of the data [33].
The logistic regression (LRC) model predicts the probability of the positive class using
the logistic function. Logistic regression is a linear model used for binary classification,
estimating the probability that an instance belongs to a particular class. The logistic
function, also known as the sigmoid function, is used to map the output to a probability
value between 0 and 1. The model’s coefficients are estimated using maximum likelihood
estimation [34].
K-nearest neighbors (KNN) is a non-parametric classification algorithm that makes
predictions based on the majority class of its k nearest neighbors in the feature space. KNN
is simple yet effective, as it relies on local information to classify instances. The predicted
class for a new instance is determined by a majority vote or weighted vote of its nearest
neighbors [35].
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 10 of 27

Gradient boosting (GB) is an ensemble learning method that sequentially builds a

strong model by combining the predictions of weak learners, typically decision trees. Each
new tree corrects the errors of the previous ones, resulting in a highly accurate ensemble
model. The prediction of the ensemble is a weighted sum of the predictions of the individual
weak learners [36].
Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) is a powerful ensemble learning method that
utilizes gradient boosting to sequentially train decision trees and minimize a differentiable
loss function. By iteratively adding weak learners, XGBoost improves the model’s perfor-
mance while reducing bias and variance. The objective function in XGBoost comprises a
combination of a differentiable loss function and a regularizer term, which is optimized
during training [37].
The hyperparameter settings used to optimize the performance of the ML models and
achieve better accuracy are detailed in the Table 3 below.

Table 3. The values for hyperparameters tuning.

Classifier Parameters
DT Max_depth = 6
n_estimators = 42
RF
random_state = 42
LRC random_state = 42
n_neighbors = 5,
KNN
metric = minkowski, p = 2
n_estimators = 100,
GB learning_rate = 1.0,
max_depth = 5
booster = gbtree, max_depth = 6,
XGB gamma = 0, min_child_weight = 1,
subsample = 1.0, colsample_bytree = 1.0

These hyperparameter configurations were fine-tuned to achieve optimal performance.

For instance, the max_depth parameter in DT and XGB prevents overfitting by limiting
the tree depth, while the n_estimators in RF, GB, and bagging enhances predictive stability.
Additionally, using random_state ensures reproducibility, and parameters like learning_rate
and min_child_weight help balance model complexity and learning efficiency.

2.7. Performance Metrics

A confusion matrix is a valuable tool for evaluating the performance of a classification
model by comparing the model’s predicted outcomes with the actual outcomes [38]. It
provides a detailed summary of prediction results, which is especially useful in scenarios
with imbalanced classes or when different classification errors have varying consequences.
By analyzing the matrix, we can gain insights into the types and frequencies of errors the
model makes, aiding in understanding its overall performance. Figure 5 depicts the matrix,
which includes key terms such as true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false negative
(FN), and false positive (FP). Table 4 provides a summary of the performance measure-
ment metrics used in this study. Accuracy represents the percentage of overall correct
predictions, reflecting the model’s ability to classify all cases correctly. Precision measures
the rate of correct positive predictions among all predicted positive cases, indicating the
model’s reliability in identifying true positives. Recall highlights the percentage of correctly
identified positive cases out of all actual positive cases, showcasing the model’s sensitivity.
Lastly, the F1-score combines precision and recall to provide a balanced measure of the
classifier’s precision and robustness, offering insight into the model’s overall performance.
 of correctly identified positive cases out of all actual positive cases, showcasing the
model’s sensitivity. Lastly, the F1-score combines precision and recall to provide a bal-
anced measure of the classifier’s precision and robustness, offering insight into the
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 11 of 27
model’s overall performance.

Figure 5. Format of confusion matrix.

Figure 5. Format of confusion matrix.
Table 4. Description of performance measurement metrics:.
Table 4.Metrics
Description of performance measurement metrics:.
Formula Meaning
TP+ TN
Accuracy
Metrics TN × 100
Formula
FP+ TP+ FN + Rate of overall correct prediction
Meaning
TP Rate of correct positive predictions among all
Precision × 100
𝑇𝑃
TP+ FP
𝑇𝑁 predicted
Rate ofpositive
overallcases
correct
Accuracy 100
𝐹𝑃 TP
𝑇𝑃 𝐹𝑁 𝑇𝑁 prediction
Rate of correctly identified positive cases
Recall TP+ FN × 100
among all actual positive cases

𝑇𝑃
Recall × Precision DescribeRate
howof correct
precise positive
and robust a
F1-score 2× × 100
Precision Recall + Precision 100 predictions
classifier isamong all
𝑇𝑃 𝐹𝑃
predicted positive cases
Receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC AUC): The ROC AUC is used
Rate of correctly identified
to measure the area under the receiver𝑇𝑃 operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which plots
Recall 100 positive cases among all
𝑇𝑃 against
the true-positive rate (sensitivity) 𝐹𝑁 the false-positive rate (1-specificity) for different
actual positive cases
threshold values [39]. It quantifies the model’s ability to discriminate between positive and
negative classes across all𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙
possible𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
thresholds. The ROC Describe
AUC score howranges
precisefrom
and0 to 1,
F1-score 2 100
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 better
where a score closer to 1 indicates 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
model performance. robust a classifier is
K-fold cross-validation: We use the K-fold cross-validation method to assess the
performance and validity
Receiver operating of an ML model
characteristic [40]. We
area under divide
curve (ROC theAUC):
dataset
Theinto k equal
ROC AUCparts
is
or folds. The model is then trained and validated k times, using a different
used to measure the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which fold as the
validation set and the remaining K −
plots the true-positive rate (sensitivity) against the false-positive rate (1-specificity) for K
1 folds as the training set. This process generates
performance
different scores,
threshold which
values are It
[39]. averaged to produce
quantifies a single
the model’s performance
ability estimate.
to discriminate K-fold
between
cross-validation helps reduce overfitting and efficient use of data. This method provides a
robust evaluation by leveraging various data subsets for training and validation.

2.8. Explainable AI (XAI)

XAI is a field focused on making the decision-making processes of AI systems transpar-
ent and understandable to humans [41]. As AI models become more complex, particularly
with the rise of deep learning, their internal workings can often appear as “black boxes”,
making it difficult to understand how they produce results. XAI seeks to demystify these
processes, providing clear explanations that build trust and allow users to challenge or
correct the decisions made by AI systems.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 12 of 27

2.8.1. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP)

SHAP is a methodology based on cooperative game theory that assigns a unique value
to each feature, known as the SHAP value [42]. This value represents the contribution of
that feature to the model’s prediction for a specific instance. SHAP is versatile, offering both
global explanations, which provide insights into the overall behavior of the model across
the entire dataset, and local explanations that clarify how individual features influence
specific predictions. SHAP values are consistent, ensuring that the sum of contributions
from all features matches the difference between the model’s output for a given sample
and the average output. While SHAP offers a comprehensive understanding of feature
importance and interactions, it can be computationally intensive, particularly for complex
models and large datasets.

2.8.2. Local Interpretable Model–Agnostic Explanations (LIME)

LIME is a methodology that provides localized explanations by approximating the
behavior of a complex model around a specific prediction [43]. It works by generating
perturbed versions of the original data point with slight modifications to feature values and
then training a simple, interpretable model (such as linear regression) on these modified
data. This simple model serves as a local approximation of the complex model’s behavior
in close proximity to the prediction. Any ML model can apply LIME, and its computational
efficiency makes it suitable for real-time analysis. However, LIME’s explanations are valid
only within the local region around the specific prediction and may not generalize well to
the entire model, as it assumes local linearity, which might not always hold true.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Statistical Analysis
We performed a logistic regression analysis on the dataset using Python’s statistics
models [44] and the smf.logit function. The model predicts the likelihood of having
learning difficulties based on several independent variables, including categorical and
numerical ones. After fitting the model, the model summary provides us with coefficients,
p-values, OR, and CI. The interpretation of results involves understanding the impact of
each independent variable on the likelihood of having learning difficulties. Table 5 displays
each variable’s p-value, OR, and 95% CI. Below is a detailed analysis of all variables to
understand their impact:
• Took away privileges: Children who had privileges taken away are 1.490 times more
likely to have learning difficulties compared to those who did not. This association
is statistically significant (p < 0.001), with a confidence interval of 1.284 to 1.728,
indicating a strong effect;
• Shook child: The odds of having learning difficulties are 1.260 times higher for chil-
dren who were shaken compared to those who were not. This finding is statistically
significant (p = 0.002), with a confidence interval of 1.086 to 1.462;
• Beat child as hard as one could: Children who were severely physically punished
(beaten as hard as one could) have 2.265 times higher odds of learning difficulties com-
pared to those who were not. This effect is highly statistically significant (p < 0.001),
with a confidence interval of 1.776 to 2.888;
• Sex: Male children are 1.215 times more likely to have learning difficulties compared
to female children. This effect is statistically significant (p = 0.009), with a confidence
interval of 1.049 to 1.406;
• Wealth index and mother’s education: Children from the poorest households are
2.612 times more likely to have learning difficulties compared to the richest households.
The odds decrease with increasing wealth, remaining significant in the second and
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 13 of 27

middle quintiles but not in the fourth. Lower maternal education also increases the
odds of learning difficulties, though not all levels are statistically significant;
• Called child dumb/lazy: The odds of learning difficulties for children who were called
dumb or lazy are 1.077 times higher compared to those who were not, but this effect is
not statistically significant (p = 0.376), with a confidence interval of 0.913 to 1.271;
• Weight-for-age percentile: The weight-for-age percentile does not show a statistically
significant association with learning difficulties (OR = 1.000, p = 0.963), suggesting it
has a negligible impact;
• Child’s weight: Lower child weight is associated with slightly reduced odds of learning
difficulties (OR = 0.954), and this effect is statistically significant (p = 0.040).

Table 5. Association between the dependent variable and independent variables.

Samples with No Samples with Having 95% CI Interval

Factors OR p-Value
Learning Difficulty Learning Difficulty Low High
Categorical
Took away privileges
NO (Reference) 5941 480 1
YES 6516 337 1.490 0.000 1.284 1.728
Shook child
NO (Reference) 5364 436 1
YES 7093 381 1.260 0.002 1.086 1.462
Called child dumb lazy
NO (Reference) 2955 244 1
YES 9502 573 1.077 0.376 0.913 1.271
Beat child as hard as one
could
NO (Reference) 540 92 1
YES 11,917 725 2.265 0.000 1.776 2.888
Sex
FEMALE (Reference) 6418 465 1
MALE 6039 352 1.215 0.009 1.049 1.406
Wealth index quintile
Richest (Reference) 3064 331 1
Poorest 2655 186 2.612 0.000 1.953 3.492
Second 2359 125 1.841 0.000 1.364 2.485
Middle 2351 108 1.401 0.033 1.027 1.911
Fourth 2028 67 1.275 0.128 0.933 1.743
Mother’s education
Higher secondary+
1493 138 1
(Reference)
Pre-primary or none 3068 249 1.303 0.103 0.948 1.791
Primary 6130 358 1.216 0.188 0.909 1.627
Secondary 1766 72 1.110 0.449 0.848 1.452
Numerical Total samples
Weight-for-age percentile 13,274 1.000 0.963 0.994 1.006
Child’s weight 13,274 0.954 0.040 0.912 0.998
 Second 2359 125 1.841 0.000 1.364 2.485
Middle 2351 108 1.401 0.033 1.027 1.911
Fourth 2028 67 1.275 0.128 0.933 1.743
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 14 of 27
Mother’s education
Higher secondary+ (Reference) 1493 138 1
Pre-primary or none The analysis highlights several key factors associated 0.103
3068 249 1.303 0.948 difficulties
with learning 1.791 in
Primary 6130
children. Disciplinary 358as taking away
practices, such 1.216 privileges,
0.188 shaking,
0.909 and 1.627
severe
Secondary 1766 72 1.110 0.449 0.848 1.452
physical punishment, significantly increase the odds of learning difficulties. Socioeconomic
Numerical status plays a crucialTotal
role, samples
with children from the poorest households being at a much
Weight-for-age percentile 13,274 1.000
higher risk, and lower maternal education also contributing 0.963 0.994 likelihood.
to this increased 1.006
Child’s weight 13,274
Additionally, male children 0.954 learning
are more likely to experience 0.040 difficulties
0.912 0.998
compared
to females.
The
The heatmap shown ininFigure
heatmap shown Figure6 reveals
6 reveals a moderately
a moderately strong
strong positive
positive correlation
correlation (0.663)
(0.663) between “Child’s_weight” and “Weight_age_P”, indicating that as
between “Child’s_weight” and “Weight_age_P”, indicating that as a child’s weight in-a child’s weight
increases, their
creases, their weight-for-age
weight-for-age percentile
percentile also
also tends tends
to rise. to rise. both
In contrast, In “Child’s_weight”
contrast, both
“Child’s_weight”
and “Weight_age_P” andhave
“Weight_age_P”
weak negative have weak negative
correlations correlations with
with “Learning_skill” “Learn-
(−0.030 and
ing_skill” (−0.030 and −0.032, respectively), suggesting that these physical growth
−0.032, respectively), suggesting that these physical growth indicators have a minimal indica-
tors have a minimal
relationship relationship
with the with the
child’s learning child’s
skills learning
compared skills compared to others.
to others.

Correlationbetween
Figure6.6.Correlation
Figure betweenchild’s
child’sweight,
weight,weight-for-age
weight-for-agepercentile,
percentile,and
andlearning
learningskill
skillcompared
compared
to others.
to others.
3.2. ML Model Performance
3.2. ML Model Performance
These models were chosen to effectively capture the complex and multi-faceted nature
These models were chosen to effectively capture the complex and multi-faceted na-
of the dataset, which includes various socio-economic, health, and educational indicators
ture of the dataset, which includes various socio-economic, health, and educational indi-
relevant to learning difficulties. KNN was used for its simplicity and effectiveness in
cators relevant
handling to learning
non-linear difficulties.
relationships KNN
within was used
the dataset. forwas
LRC its simplicity
chosen forand effectiveness
its interpretability
inand
handling
ability non-linear relationships
to model linear withinDT
relationships. theand
dataset. LRCselected
RF were was chosen for its
for their interpret-in
flexibility
ability and ability to model linear relationships. DT and RF were selected
managing hierarchical data, while GB and XGB were employed to improve predictive for their
accuracy through their iterative error-correcting process and capacity to handle complex
interactions in the data. By utilizing these models, the study aimed to validate its findings
across different ML algorithms, ensuring the robustness of the results within the context of
the MICS 2019 dataset.
Figure 7 presents a comprehensive comparison of several machine learning algorithms
applied to the MICS 2019 dataset for predicting child learning abilities. We evaluated
the models using various performance metrics and assessed them through 10-fold cross-
validation. Furthermore, we analyzed the performance metrics of various classification
models to assess their effectiveness in predicting child learning difficulties. The DT model
demonstrated moderate performance, with an accuracy of 0.70, precision of 0.67, and recall
of 0.80, resulting in an F1-score of 0.73. In contrast, the KNN model showed better results
with an accuracy of 0.86, a high recall of 0.97, and an F1-score of 0.87. LRC performed
 ated the models using various performance metrics and assessed them through 10-fold
cross-validation. Furthermore, we analyzed the performance metrics of various classifica-
tion models to assess their effectiveness in predicting child learning difficulties. The DT
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 model demonstrated moderate performance, with an accuracy of 0.70, precision of 0.67, 15 of 27
and recall of 0.80, resulting in an F1-score of 0.73. In contrast, the KNN model showed
better results with an accuracy of 0.86, a high recall of 0.97, and an F1-score of 0.87. LRC
similarly
performed across mostacross
similarly metrics, with
most valueswith
metrics, aroundvalues0.69. The RF
around model
0.69. The RF performed
model per- well,
achieving an accuracy of 0.91, precision of 0.89, recall of 0.93, and an F1-score
formed well, achieving an accuracy of 0.91, precision of 0.89, recall of 0.93, and an F1-score of 0.91. GB and
XGB yielded
of 0.91. GB andthe XGB
best results,
yielded achieving exceptional
the best results, achievingperformance
exceptionalmetrics such asmetrics
performance accuracy
ofsuch
0.95,asprecision
accuracy of of0.95, precision
0.96–0.97, of 0.96–0.97,
recall of 0.93, andrecallanofF1-score
0.93, andofan0.95.
F1-score
Theseof 0.95. These
models also
models
had highalsoNPV had
andhigh
ROC NPV AUCandscores
ROC AUCof 0.93scores
and of 0.93
0.95, and 0.95, respectively.
respectively. This analysis Thissuggests
anal-
ysisGB
that suggests
and XGB thatare
GBtheandmost
XGBeffective
are the most effective
models models
for this for this application,
application, outperforming outper-other
forming other classifiers in nearly all metrics. The results show how
classifiers in nearly all metrics. The results show how well different ML models predict well different ML
models predict
learning learning
difficulties difficulties
in children. in children.their
It compares It compares their performance
performance using various using var-
measures
ious measures that assess how accurately the models identify children
that assess how accurately the models identify children with and without difficulties and with and without
difficulties
how balanced and howpredictions
their balanced their
are. predictions
RF, XGB, KNN, are. RF,
andXGB, KNN, and
GB perform veryGB perform
well, with very
results
well, with results close to perfect, meaning they make highly reliable
close to perfect, meaning they make highly reliable predictions and are good at correctly predictions and are
good at correctly identifying both children with and without learning
identifying both children with and without learning difficulties. In contrast, models likedifficulties. In con-
trast,
DT andmodels like DT and
LRC perform LRC perform
slightly slightly less
less effectively. Theireffectively. Their
predictions arepredictions
still usefularebutstill
less
useful but less consistent and accurate compared to the top-performing models.
consistent and accurate compared to the top-performing models.

Figure7.7.Performance
Figure Performance metrics
metrics of various
various ML
MLalgorithms
algorithmsfor
forpredicting
predictingchild
childlearning
learning difficulties.
difficulties.

The
TheMLMLmodels
models in
in this
this study were
were trained
trainedononaaworkstation
workstationequipped
equipped with
with anan Intel
Intel
Core
Corei3i3CPU
CPU@@ 2.3
2.3 GHz and 12 12 GB
GBofofRAM.
RAM.Training
Trainingtimes
timesvaried
varied across
across models,
models, reflecting
reflecting
their
theircomplexity
complexity andand the
the chosen hyperparameters.
hyperparameters.The TheTable
Table6 6shows
showsthat thatthethe
DTDT model
model
was
wasthe
thefastest,
fastest,with
with aa training time
time of
of 0.06
0.06ssand
andaatesting
testingtime
timeofof0.0007
0.0007s. s. Following
Following DT,DT,
LRChad
LRC hadthe
thebest
besttesting
testingtime
timeatat0.0005
0.0005 s,
s, and
and XGB
XGB came next with a testingtesting time
time of
of0.0094
0.0094 s.
s. Other
Other algorithms,
algorithms, whilerequiring
while requiringmore
moretime,
time, still provided
providedvaluable
valuableresults
resultswith good
with good
accuracy and performance. These training times demonstrate the computational efficiency
of each model within the constraints of the available resources, allowing for effective model
evaluation and tuning without significant delays.

Table 6. Time Requirements for Training ML Models.

Models Train_Time (s) Test_Time (s)

DT 0.063787 0.000712
KNN 2.099552 0.037495
LRC 0.243012 0.00052
RF 2.256923 0.261399
GB 5.796678 0.011094
XGB 1.841549 0.009374
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 16 of 27

Furthermore, the Table 7 presents the performance metrics of the XGB model, evalu-
ated using 1- to 10-fold cross-validation for predicting child learning difficulties. Each fold
displayed consistent results, with high accuracy precision, recall, F1-score, NPV, and ROC
AUC score. Overall, the table highlights the robust performance of the XGB model across
multiple evaluation metrics.

Table 7. K-fold cross-validation performance metrics for XGB model predicting child learning
difficulties.

K_Fold Accuracy Precision Recall F1_Score npv roc_auc

1_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.95
2_Fold 0.94 0.95 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94
3_Fold 0.94 0.96 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94
4_Fold 0.94 0.96 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94
5_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95
6_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95
7_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95
8_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95
9_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95
10_Fold 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.95

The confusion matrices in Figure 8 generated by the six different ML models DT, RF,
LRC, KNN, GB, and XGB provide key insights into their effectiveness in predicting early
child learning difficulties, where the outcomes are classified as either “NO DIFFICULTY”
(0) or “HAS DIFFICULTY” (1). The XGB model stands out as a very good performer,
with the highest number of true positives (1168) and true negatives (1208), coupled with
the lowest number of false positives (36) and false negatives (79), indicating its high
accuracy in identifying both children who have and those who do not have learning
difficulties. Similarly, the GB model demonstrates strong performance, with slightly fewer
true positives (1170), more true negatives (1212), and very few false positives (32), making
it another reliable option. The RF model also performs well, with a favorable balance of
true positives (1154) and true negatives (1100), though it has a moderate number of false
positives (144) and false negatives (93), indicating some room for improvement in reducing
misclassifications. The KNN model, despite its strong identification of true positives (1199),
struggles with a higher number of false positives (324), making it less reliable in correctly
identifying children without learning difficulties. The LRC, however, has a significant
number of false negatives (397), posing a risk of under-detection. The DT model, with a
substantial number of false positives (500), indicates a tendency to over-predict learning
difficulties. Overall, XGB and GB emerge as the most effective models, offering the best
balance between accurately predicting both classes and minimizing errors.
The ROC AUC curves in Figure 9 present a comparative analysis of six ML models
applied to a dataset on child learning difficulties. The XGB and GB models, indicated by
the orange and purple curves, respectively, both achieved the highest ROC AUC of 0.95,
demonstrating their exceptional ability to differentiate between classes. The RF model,
represented by the red curve, also performed well with an ROC AUC of 0.91, though it
lagged slightly behind XGB and GB. In contrast, the DT, LRC, and KNN models, represented
by blue, cyan, and green curves, respectively, each achieved an ROC AUC of 0.70, 0.69, and
0.86. This suggests that these models are less effective compared to the top-performing
XGB, GB, and RF models. Overall, the analysis indicates that XGB and GB are the most
 represented by the red curve, also performed well with an ROC AUC of 0.91, though it
represented by the red curve, also performed well with an ROC AUC of 0.91, though it
lagged slightly behind XGB and GB. In contrast, the DT, LRC, and KNN models, repre-
lagged slightly behind XGB and GB. In contrast, the DT, LRC, and KNN models, repre-
sented by blue, cyan, and green curves, respectively, each achieved an ROC AUC of 0.70,
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20
sented by blue, cyan, and green curves, respectively, each achieved an ROC AUC of 0.70,
0.69, and 0.86. This suggests that these models are less effective compared to the top-per- 17 of 27
0.69, and 0.86. This suggests that these models are less effective compared to the top-per-
forming XGB, GB, and RF models. Overall, the analysis indicates that XGB and GB are the
forming XGB, GB, and RF models. Overall, the analysis indicates that XGB and GB are the
most effective models for predicting child learning difficulties, with RF following closely
most effective
effective modelsmodels
forLRC,for predicting
predicting child child learning
learning difficulties,
difficulties, with RFwith RF following
following closely
closely behind,
behind, while DT, and KNN exhibit lower classification performance.
behind,
while DT,while
LRC,DT,
andLRC,
KNNand KNNlower
exhibit exhibit lower classification
classification performance.
performance.

Figure 8. Confusion metrics for various machine learning algorithms for child learning difficulty
Figure 8. Confusion
Figure 8. Confusion metrics
metrics for
for various
various machine
machine learning
learning algorithms
algorithms for
for child
child learning
learning difficulty
difficulty
prediction.
prediction.
prediction.

Figure 9. ROC AUC Curves for Various ML Algorithms for Child learning difficulties prediction.

3.3. SHAP Explanation

According to the ML model performance matrices, it is clear that the XGB and GB
models perform best. Therefore, we utilized the XGB model in our XAI analysis to interpret
the outputs based on the influence of the input features.
In Figure 10, the SHAP summary plot provides a detailed analysis of how various
factors influence the probability of learning difficulties in children. Here, the negative
SHAP value indicates the absence of learning difficulties, while the positive value indicates
the presence of difficulties. The figure shows that removing privileges is a significant risk
factor, increasing the probability of learning challenges. In contrast, a higher wealth index
serves as a strong protective factor, reducing this risk by providing a more supportive
 factors influence the probability of learning difficulties in children. Here, the negative
SHAP value indicates the absence of learning difficulties, while the positive value indi-
cates the presence of difficulties. The figure shows that removing privileges is a significant
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 18 of 27
risk factor, increasing the probability of learning challenges. In contrast, a higher wealth
index serves as a strong protective factor, reducing this risk by providing a more support-
ive environment
environment for for learning.
learning. Sex Sex
has has a relatively
a relatively smaller
smaller impact,
impact, suggesting
suggesting that gender
that while while
gender differences
differences exist,are
exist, they they
notare
as not as influential
influential as socioeconomic
as socioeconomic factors.
factors. Negative
Negative be-
behaviors,
haviors, such as shaking the child, physical punishment (e.g., beating the child
such as shaking the child, physical punishment (e.g., beating the child hard), and verbal hard), and
verbal
abuse abuse (e.g., calling
(e.g., calling the child
the child dumbdumb or lazy),
or lazy), are strongly
are strongly associated
associated with
with an an in-
increased
creased likelihood of learning difficulties. These factors highlight the detrimental
likelihood of learning difficulties. These factors highlight the detrimental effects of harsh effects
ofdisciplinary
harsh disciplinary
actions on actions on cognitive
a child’s a child’s development.
cognitive development.
On the other Onhand,
the other
higherhand,
levels
higher levels of maternal education and better physical health indicators, such
of maternal education and better physical health indicators, such as a higher weight-for- as a higher
weight-for-age
age percentilepercentile
and child’s and child’sact
weight, weight, act as protective
as protective factors, reducing
factors, reducing thelearning
the risk of risk of
learning difficulties. This emphasizes the importance of supportive environments
difficulties. This emphasizes the importance of supportive environments in lowering in low-the
ering
risk ofthelearning
risk of learning
difficultiesdifficulties and demonstrates
and demonstrates how harmful
how harmful negativenegative behaviors
behaviors and low
and low socioeconomic
socioeconomic status can status
be. can be.

Figure10.
Figure SHAPsummary
10.SHAP summaryplot
plotshowing
showing the
the influence
influence of
of input
input features
featureson
onchildren
childrenlearning
learningdifficul-
diffi-
ties.
culties.

Furthermore, the SHAP waterfall plots reveal how various factors contribute to pre-
Furthermore, the SHAP waterfall plots reveal how various factors contribute to pre-
dicting the learning skill difficulties for two specific children. Both plots emphasize the
dicting the learning skill difficulties for two specific children. Both plots emphasize the
strong influence of parenting practices, physical health, and socio-economic factors on the
strong influence of parenting practices, physical health, and socio-economic factors on the
likelihood of learning difficulties in children.
likelihood of learning difficulties in children.
In Figure 11, the model predicts a higher probability that the child has learning
In Figure 11, the model predicts a higher probability that the child has learning diffi-
difficulties, as the output is f(x) = 1.229. The primary factors contributing to this prediction
culties, as the output is f(x) = 1.229. The primary factors contributing to this prediction are
are the following:
the following:
• • Beating
Beating hard(YES
hard (YES= =1)1)significantly
significantlyincreases
increasesthe
thelikelihood
likelihoodofoflearning
learningdifficulties
difficulties
(+0.51). Harsh physical punishment is strongly correlated with
(+0.51). Harsh physical punishment is strongly correlated with emotional and emotional andcogni-
cogni-
tivechallenges
tive challenges inin children
children (Beating
(Beatingoror physically punishing
physically a child
punishing is a crime
a child is a punish-
crime
able by law in many countries. Such abusive behavior has been proven to severely
hinder a child’s emotional, cognitive, and educational development, including their
learning capabilities);
• Removal of privileges (YES = 1) adds positively to the prediction (+0.39), as this
negative disciplinary action can affect a child’s mental well-being and learning ability;
• Shaking the child (NO = 2) contributes negatively (−0.34), implying that the absence
of shaking reduces the likelihood of learning difficulties;
• Sex (MALE = 1) increases the likelihood of difficulties (+0.2), indicating that male
children may face a higher probability of learning issues in this dataset;
• Mother’s education (Primary = 1) has a moderate positive influence (+0.18), showing
that lower maternal education correlates with a higher risk of learning difficulties;
 Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 19 of 27

• Weight–age percentile (0.8) and called dumb/lazy (YES = 1) have smaller positive
contributions (+0.12 and +0.1, respectively), indicating that poor physical health and
verbal abuse contribute to learning difficulties;
• Child’s weight (11.9) and wealth index (Second = 2) have minimal effects, with wealth
index showing a slight negative impact (−0.02), suggesting that lower socio-economic
status marginally increases learning difficulties.
Again, in Figure 12, the model predicts a lower probability of the child having learning
difficulties, as the output is f(x) = −2.23. The primary factors contributing to this prediction
are the following:
• Removed privileges (NO = 2) significantly reduce the likelihood of learning difficulties
(−0.77). This suggests that not using this negative disciplinary tactic supports a
positive outcome;
• Child’s weight (13.6) and weight–age percentile (29.9) both have substantial negative
contributions (−0.66 and −0.48, respectively), implying that good physical health
strongly correlates with better cognitive outcomes;
• Shaking the child (NO = 2) also contributes negatively (−0.44), reinforcing that avoid-
ing physical mistreatment reduces learning challenges
• Sex (MALE = 1) has a smaller positive impact (+0.28), suggesting that being male
slightly increases the likelihood of learning difficulties, though its effect is less signifi-
cant in this prediction;
• Called dumb/lazy (NO = 2) contributes negatively (−0.13), indicating that not verbally
labeling the child helps reduce the likelihood of learning difficulties;
• Mother’s education (None = 0) and wealth index (Second = 2) provide smaller positive
and negative influences (+0.12 and −0.11, respectively), showing a marginal effect of
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 socio-economic and educational factors; 20 of 28
• Beating hard (NO = 2) has a slight negative contribution (−0.07), suggesting that
avoiding physical punishment supports lower chances of learning difficulties.

Figure11.
Figure SHAPwaterfall
11.SHAP waterfallplot
plotfor
forpredicting
predictingthe
thepresence
presenceof
oflearning
learningdifficulties
difficultiesin
inaachild.
child.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 20 of 27
Figure 11. SHAP waterfall plot for predicting the presence of learning difficulties in a child.

Figure12.
Figure SHAPwaterfall
12.SHAP waterfallplot
plotfor
forpredicting
predictingthe
theabsence
absenceof
oflearning
learningdifficulties
difficultiesin
inaachild.
child.

3.4. LIME Explanation

3.4. LIME Explanation
The LIME plots offer a comprehensive explanation of the model’s predictions on
The LIME plots offer a comprehensive explanation of the model’s predictions on
whether a child has learning difficulties based on various input features. These explanations,
whether a child has learning difficulties based on various input features. These explana-
which were generated using the best-performing XGB model, emphasize the critical role of
tions, which were generated using the best-performing XGB model, emphasize the critical
factors such as health, economic conditions, and parenting practices in predicting learning
role of factors such as health, economic conditions, and parenting practices in predicting
difficulties. They also identify areas that require improvement, especially in addressing
learning difficulties. They also identify areas that require improvement, especially in ad-
factors that adversely affect a child’s learning abilities.
dressing factors that adversely affect a child’s learning abilities.
In Figure 13, the model predicts a 0.93 probability that the child does not have learning
In Figure 13, the model predicts a 0.93 probability that the child does not have learn-
difficulties. The primary factors contributing to this prediction are as follows:
ing difficulties. The primary factors contributing to this prediction are as follows:
• The factors of child’s weight (14.30) and weight–age percentile (37.50) significantly
• The factors of child’s weight (14.30) and weight–age percentile (37.50) significantly
influence the prediction that the child does not have learning difficulties. Higher
influence the prediction that the child does not have learning difficulties. Higher val-
values
ues indicate
indicate goodgood physical
physical health,
health, which
which is strongly
is strongly associatedwith
associated withbetter
bettercognitive
cognitive
development and learning capabilities;
development and learning capabilities;
•• AAhigher
higherwealth
wealthindex
index(Richest
(Richest==5),
5),which
whichoften
oftenprovides
providesaccess
accesstotobetter
betterresources
resources
and educational opportunities, contributes to a lower likelihood of learning
and educational opportunities, contributes to a lower likelihood of learning difficulties.
This positive socio-economic status helps to minimize the negative impact of removing
privileges (YES = 1), which otherwise increases the risk of learning difficulties;
• A lower level of maternal education (Primary = 1) is often associated with a higher like-
lihood of experiencing learning difficulties, which has some impact on the prediction;
• Negative parenting behaviors, such as shaking the child (YES = 1), increase the
likelihood of learning difficulties. But beating hard (NO = 2) and calling the child
dumb/lazy (NO = 2) indicate that the absence of severe physical punishment and
abuse decreases the likelihood of learning difficulties;
• The factor Sex (FEMALE = 2) contributes to the prediction that female children have a
lower probability of experiencing learning difficulties.
 dumb/lazy (NO = 2) indicate that the absence of severe physical punishment and
abuse decreases the likelihood of learning difficulties;
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20
• The factor Sex (FEMALE = 2) contributes to the prediction that female children have
21 of 27
a lower probability of experiencing learning difficulties.

Figure 13. LIME plot explaining prediction of the absence of learning difficulties in a child.
Figure 13. LIME plot explaining prediction of the absence of learning difficulties in a child.
Furthermore, in Figure 14, the model predicts with a high probability (1.00) that the
Furthermore, in Figure 14, the model predicts with a high probability (1.00) that the
child has learning difficulties. The key contributing factors to this prediction are as follows:
child has learning difficulties. The key contributing factors to this prediction are as fol-
• The factors of the child’s weight (11.28) and weight–age percentile (1.30) significantly
lows:
contribute to the prediction of learning difficulties because the child’s low weight
• The factors of the child’s weight (11.28) and weight–age percentile (1.30) significantly
and weight-for-age percentile suggest poor health, which is often associated with
contribute to the prediction of learning difficulties because the child’s low weight and
developmental challenges;
weight-for-age percentile suggest poor health, which is often associated with devel-
•opmental
The factors like removing privileges (YES = 1) along with wealth index (Poorest = 1)
challenges;
conditions are linked toprivileges
• The factors like removing a higher likelihood of learning
(YES = 1) along difficulties;
with wealth index (Poorest = 1)
•conditions
The mother’s education
are linked (Primary
to a higher = 1) factor
likelihood slightly
of learning influences the prediction, as a
difficulties;
• Thelower leveleducation
mother’s of maternal education
(Primary is often
= 1) factorassociated with an increased
slightly influences risk of learning
the prediction, as a
lower level of maternal education is often associated with an increased risk of learning
difficulties;
•difficulties;
The factor sex (FEMALE = 2) contributes to the “No difficulties” prediction in this
• Thecase;
factor sex (FEMALE = 2) contributes to the “No difficulties” prediction in this
•case;
Negative parenting behaviors: Shaking the child (NO = 2) and beating hard
• Negative
(NO =parenting
2) slightlybehaviors: Shaking
decreases the the child
likelihood (NO = 2)
of learning and beating
difficulties, buthard (NO
calling the= 2)
child
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 slightly decreases the likelihood of learning difficulties, but calling the22 child of 28
dumb/lazy (YES = 1) contributes to the prediction of have difficulties, reinforcing the
dumb/lazy (YES = 1) contributes to the prediction of have difficulties, reinforcing the
model’s overall prediction.
model’s overall prediction.

Figure 14. LIME plot explaining prediction of the presence of learning difficulties in a child.
Figure 14. LIME plot explaining prediction of the presence of learning difficulties in a child.

4. Comparison with Other Works

This study compared its findings with research from Oman, Australia, and the U.S.,
focusing on early childhood learning outcomes. While previous studies used diverse da-
tasets and methods, our approach uniquely applies the MICS 2019 dataset to the Bangla-
deshi context. Unlike prior research, which often lacked explainability, we integrated
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 22 of 27

4. Comparison with Other Works

This study compared its findings with research from Oman, Australia, and the U.S., fo-
cusing on early childhood learning outcomes. While previous studies used diverse datasets
and methods, our approach uniquely applies the MICS 2019 dataset to the Bangladeshi
context. Unlike prior research, which often lacked explainability, we integrated SHAP
and LIME to enhance model interpretability. This comparison highlights our study’s con-
tribution to understanding learning difficulties through a region-specific lens, offering
actionable insights for policymaking and education strategies.
Table 8 presents a detailed comparison of our work with other research studies,
emphasizing methodologies, datasets, statistical applications of ML, and XAI techniques.
The table highlights performance metrics like accuracy, precision, recall, and specificity
to demonstrate the effectiveness of different approaches. Additionally, it outlines the
integration of statistical ML and XAI tools, providing a comprehensive overview of how
our work aligns with or advances existing research in the field.
One study explored factors impacting academic performance using statistical ML tech-
niques, specifically the J48 algorithm, applied to a dataset of 6514 students over 11 years
at a public university in Oman. The study achieved an accuracy of 82.4% but did not
integrate any XAI methods or statistical explanations to interpret the results [8]. Another
study applied ML to identify risk factors for ADHD in children using data from 45,779
participants in the 2018–2019 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). While logistic
regression and eight ML classifiers were tested, the RF classifier stood out with an accu-
racy of 85.5% and an AUC of 0.94. However, the study focused only on statistical ML
performance without employing XAI to explain the models [9].
Similarly, the study [10] predicted depression in children and adolescents using mental
health and socio-environmental features from 6310 Australian participants (2013–2014). ML
models like RF, XGB, DT, and Gaussian naive Bayes were used, with the RF model achieving
95% accuracy and 99% precision. Despite the robust performance, the study did not utilize
XAI tools for model interpretability or statistical analysis of feature importance. Another
research [11] evaluated ML techniques for predicting academic performance factors using
data from 5084 students aged 10–17 in West Bank schools. Among the models tested (RF,
ANN, SVM, DT, NB, and LR), LR achieved the best results with a sensitivity of 94.3%,
specificity of 96.3%, and an AUC of 99.3%. However, no XAI techniques were used to
explain the predictive factors.
In studies focused on autism spectrum disorder (ASD), research [15] analyzed data
from 292 children and 704 adults using multiple ML algorithms. The ANN model achieved
94.24% accuracy and a high specificity of 95.05%, but no XAI methods were applied to
interpret the findings statistically. Another study [16] focused on toddler ASD diagnosis,
achieving a perfect performance of 100% accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score using LR
but without incorporating statistical analysis or XAI tools.
In contrast, our work integrated both statistical ML and XAI to identify key factors and
predict learning difficulties in Bangladeshi children under five years of age. Using a refined
dataset from MICS 2019, we employed ML algorithms like DT, LR, KNN, RF, XGB, and
GB, alongside SHAP and LIME for interpretability. This combination allowed us to explain
the significance of individual features statistically while enhancing the transparency of our
models. The XGB classifier demonstrated superior performance, achieving 95% accuracy,
97% precision, 93% recall, 95% F1-score, 93% NPV, and an ROC of 95%. Our work not only
matches or exceeds the performance metrics of prior studies but also provides a deeper
understanding of the underlying factors through the integration of XAI, setting it apart
from existing research.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 23 of 27

Table 8. Summary of research outcomes.

ML Statistical
Ref. Findings Data Source XAI Uses ML Performance
Application Analysis
Identified factors Data from
impacting 6514 students over
J48 achieved
[8] academic 11 years at a J48 algorithm ✕ ✕
82.4% accuracy
performance using public university
ML algorithms in Oman
RF classifier
achieved
Identified risk 2018–2019 NSCH Logistic
85.5% accuracy,
factors for ADHD data from regression and
[9] ✓ ✕ sensitivity of
in children using 45,779 children eight ML
84.4%, specificity
ML classification aged 3–17 years classifiers
of 86.4%, and
AUC of 0.94
Predicted Australian child RF model
RF, XGB, DT,
depression in and adolescent achieved
and Gaussian
[10] children and responses from ✕ ✕ 95% accuracy
naive Bayes
adolescents using 6310 participants and
algorithms
ML models (2013–2014) 99% precision
Evaluated ML LR model
techniques for Data from achieved
RF, ANN, SVM,
predicting 5084 students sensitivity of
[11] DT, NB, and LR ✕ ✕
academic aged 10–17 in the 94.3%, specificity
models
performance West Bank of 96.3%, and
factors AUC of 99.3%
ANN achieved
94.24% accuracy,
Improved early Obtained from precision 89.80%
RF, KNN, XGB,
ASD diagnosis UCI Repository; recall 92%,
[15] SVM, DT, NB, ✕ ✕
using machine 292 children and F1-score, 91%,
LR, and ANN
learning 704 adults specificity 95.05%,
and AUC of
93.84%
From UCI ML LR achieved
Enhanced toddler
Repository; SVM, RF, LR, 100% accuracy,
ASD diagnosis
[16] 1054 toddlers DT, KNN, and ✕ ✕ 100% precision,
using machine
(12–36 months) via NB 100% recall, and
learning.
ASDTests app 100% F1-score
Identified key XGB classifier
factors and DT, LR, KNN, achieved
predicted learning Refined dataset of RF, XGB, GB 95% accuracy,
difficulties in 13,274 samples algorithms, and 97% precision,
This work ✓ ✓
Bangladeshi and 19 features SHAP and 93% recall,
children under from MICS 2019 LIME 95% F1-score,
5 years old using explanations 93% NPV, and
ML models 95% ROC

5. Policy Implications
Figure 15 illustrates a structured framework that outlines a data-driven approach for
predicting and addressing early childhood learning difficulties. It integrates family data
collected by NGOs or health organizations, focusing on health, nutrition, family guidance,
education, and socioeconomic status. Data were entered, processed, and analyzed through
ML models to make predictions. XAI techniques were applied to identify key factors
influencing learning difficulties, enhancing the interpretability of results. The identified
learning gaps inform targeted policy implications and interventions, such as early child-
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 24 of 27

hood education, health services, parenting support, nutritional programs, and economic
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 assistance. This framework provides actionable insights to address disparities and 25 of 28
improve
educational outcomes through informed policymaking.

Figure 15.
Figure 15. AA data-driven
data-drivenframework
frameworkfor
forearly
earlychildhood
childhoodlearning
learningdifficulties prediction
difficulties and
prediction preven-
and preven-
tion policy
tion policy implications.
implications.

The following
followingsteps
stepswill
will help
help in in policy
policy implications
implications for addressing
for addressing childchild learning
learning dis-
disabilities:
abilities:
•• Health
Healthand andNutrition
NutritionInterventions:
Interventions:To Tosupport
supportchildren’s
children’shealth
healthand
anddevelopment,
development,
ititisisessential
essentialtotoprovide
providenutritional
nutritionalsupplements
supplementsororbalanced
balancedmeals
mealstotopromote
promote proper
proper
growth. Alongside this, organizing regular health check-ups
growth. Alongside this, organizing regular health check-ups and immunization and immunization
drives
driveshelpshelpsprevent
preventillnesses
illnessesand
andensures
ensuresoverall
overallwell-being.
well-being.Additionally,
Additionally,educating
educating
parents on the importance of maintaining a healthy diet and hygiene creates a strong
parents on the importance of maintaining a healthy diet and hygiene creates a strong
foundation for sustained child health;
foundation for sustained child health;
• Parenting Support: Workshops should be conducted to raise awareness of early
• Parentingcare,
childhood Support: Workshops
provide counseling should be conducted
for behavioral issues,toand
raise awareness
encourage of early
activities
childhood
that care,parent–child
strengthen provide counseling
bonds; for behavioral issues, and encourage activities that
• strengthen parent–child bonds;
Education Enhancements: Remedial or special education programs should be imple-
• mented
Education to address the individual
Enhancements: learning
Remedial or needs
specialofeducation
children. At the sameshould
programs time, teach-
be im-
ers should betotrained
plemented inthe
address inclusive education
individual practices
learning needsand early detection
of children. At theofsame
learning
time,
challenges, ensuring that resources are accessible for children with special
teachers should be trained in inclusive education practices and early detection of learn- needs;
• Socio-economic Support:that
ing challenges, ensuring Scholarships
resourcesor financial
are aid for
accessible should be provided
children to under-
with special needs;
privileged families, and they should be linked to social welfare schemes to improve
their living standards. This would be complemented by ensuring access to technology
and learning aids in under-resourced communities, promoting equal opportunities
for all children.
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 25 of 27

• Socio-economic Support: Scholarships or financial aid should be provided to under-

privileged families, and they should be linked to social welfare schemes to improve
their living standards. This would be complemented by ensuring access to technology
and learning aids in under-resourced communities, promoting equal opportunities for
all children.

Generalizability and Limitations

This study, which uses the MICS 2019 dataset, provides useful insights into predicting
early learning issues in children under the age of five years old. However, there are some
limitations to consider. The use of self-reported data presents potential reporting biases.
Guardians and parents might understate developmental issues due to cultural shame, a
lack of understanding, or subjective impressions, hampering the dataset’s credibility. Also,
the dataset does not include all the important factors that can indicate learning difficulties,
like family history, prenatal conditions, or socio-environmental factors. Furthermore, while
the MICS dataset represents the Bangladeshi population, the socioeconomic and cultural di-
versity of other regions may restrict the findings’ applicability to other populations. Despite
these limitations, the proposed work demonstrates substantial potential for adaptation and
application across other similar contexts (ASD, ADHD, etc.). By retraining and validating
the models with region-specific data, the approach could be extended to address early
learning challenges in diverse populations.

6. Conclusions
This study conducted both statistical and ML approaches to analyze the learning
abilities of children under five years old, using the MICS 2019 dataset. The findings show
that parental education, income, and parenting practices strongly affect children’s learning
outcomes. Additional factors contribute to learning difficulties, such as deprivation, intense
physical punishment, and verbal reprimands. Socioeconomic factors exacerbate these
issues, particularly urban living and poorer households. We then applied ML models to
predict these difficulties and found that the GB and XGB classifiers performed best, achiev-
ing high accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-scores. Moreover, these findings underscore the
importance of addressing socioeconomic disparities and improving parenting practices
to reduce learning difficulties. Also, XAI techniques like SHAP and LIME provided more
information about how different factors affect these predictions, which makes the results
easier to understand and more open. The dataset may not have adequately captured some
important variables, which is one of the study’s limitations. Additionally, the findings are
specific to Bangladesh and may not directly apply to other socio-economic and cultural
contexts without further validation. Despite these limitations, the study emphasizes the
importance of addressing socioeconomic disparities and promoting positive parenting prac-
tices to improve learning outcomes. The insights gained here can inform targeted policy
interventions to reduce learning difficulties and foster comprehensive child development.
In the future, researchers should focus on using longitudinal datasets to determine more
factors to obtain a better picture of more complex factors, making sure that the results are
valid to make them more useful.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.M. and M.R.K.; methodology, M.M.H.; validation,

M.A.M. and W.R.; formal analysis, M.R.K.; investigation, A.M.; resources, M.M.H.; writing—original
draft preparation, M.A.M. and M.R.K.; writing—review and editing, A.M.; visualization, M.R.K.;
supervision, M.M.H. and A.M.; funding acquisition, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 26 of 27

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The source of dataset is mentioned in Section 2.1.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. López-Torres, L.; Hidalgo-Montesinos, M.D. Parental involvement and children’s academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Front.
Psychol. 2020, 11, 206.
2. Turney, K.; Kao, G. Parental involvement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Soc. Forces 2023, 84, 841–876.
3. Cabrera, N.J.; Hofferth, S.L.; Chae, S. Patterns and predictors of father-infant engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early Child.
Res. Q. 2022, 43, 44–58. [CrossRef]
4. Han, W.J.; Ruhm, C.J. Maternal nonstandard work schedules and child cognitive outcomes. Child Dev. 2024, 95, 394–403.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Liu, D.; Diorio, J.; Tannenbaum, B.; Caldji, C.; Francis, D.; Freedman, A.; Meaney, M.J. Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid
receptors, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses to stress. Science 2023, 277, 1659–1662. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Driessen, J. Socioeconomic status and parenting. In The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development; Hupp, S., Jewell, J., Eds.;
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–8.
7. Englund, M.M.; Luckner, A.E.; Whaley, G.J.L.; Egeland, B. Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal
effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 96, 723–730. [CrossRef]
8. Al-Alawi, L.; Al Shaqsi, J.; Tarhini, A.; Al-Busaidi, A.S. Using Machine Learning to Predict Factors Affecting Academic Perfor-
mance: The Case of College Students on Academic Probation. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 12407–12432. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Maniruzzaman, M.; Shin, J.; Hasan, M.A.M. Predicting Children with ADHD Using Behavioral Activity: A Machine Learning
Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2737. [CrossRef]
10. Haque, U.M.; Kabir, E.; Khanam, R. Detection of child depression using machine learning methods. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261131.
[CrossRef]
11. Qasrawi, R.; VicunaPolo, S.; Al-Halawa, D.A.; Hallaq, S.; Abdeen, Z. Predicting School Children Academic Performance Using
Machine Learning Techniques. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2021, 6, 8–15. [CrossRef]
12. Yasumura, A.; Omori, M.; Fukuda, A.; Takahashi, J.; Yasumura, Y.; Nakagawa, E.; Koike, T.; Yamashita, Y.; Miyajima, T.; Koeda, T.;
et al. Applied Machine Learning Method to Predict Children With ADHD Using Prefrontal Cortex Activity: A Multicenter Study
in Japan. J. Atten. Disord. 2017, 24, 2012–2020. [CrossRef]
13. Akter, T.; Khan, M.I.; Ali, M.H.; Satu, M.S.; Uddin, M.J.; Moni, M.A. Improved Machine Learning based Classification Model
for Early Autism Detection. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Robotics, Electrical and Signal Processing
Techniques (ICREST), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 5–7 January 2021. [CrossRef]
14. Vakadkar, K.; Purkayastha, D.; Krishnan, D. Detection of Autism Spectrum Disorder in Children Using Machine Learning
Techniques. SN Comput. Sci. 2021, 2, 386. [CrossRef]
15. Rasul, R.A.; Saha, P.; Bala, D.; Karim, S.R.U.; Abdullah, I.; Saha, B. An evaluation of machine learning approaches for early
diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Healthc. Anal. 2024, 5, 100293. [CrossRef]
16. Shambour, Q. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Early Autism Detection in Toddlers: A Comparative Analysis. J. Appl. Data
Sci. 2024, 5, 1754–1764. [CrossRef]
17. Ali, N.; Ullah, A.; Khan, A.M.; Khan, Y.; Ali, S.; Bakhtawar; Khan, A.; Din, M.U.; Ullah, R.; Khan, U.N.; et al. Academic
performance of children in relation to gender, parenting styles, and socioeconomic status: What attributes are important.
PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0286823. [CrossRef]
18. Vasiou, A.; Kassis, W.; Krasanaki, A.; Aksoy, D.; Favre, C.A.; Tantaros, S. Exploring Parenting Styles Patterns and Children’s
Socio-Emotional Skills. Children 2023, 10, 1126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Armstrong, R.; Symons, M.; Scott, J.G.; Arnott, W.L.; Copland, D.A.; McMahon, K.L.; Whitehouse, A.J.O. Predicting Language
Difficulties in Middle Childhood From Early Developmental Milestones: A Comparison of Traditional Regression and Machine
Learning Techniques. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2018, 61, 1926–1944. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS); UNICEF. Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2019: Final Report; BBS and UNICEF:
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019.
21. Bhuvaneswari, K.; Kanimozhi, G.; Shanmuganeethi, V. Prediction of student learning difficulties and performance using
regression in machine learning. Distance Educ. E-Learn. 2023, 11, 2455–2460.
22. Wu, T.K.; Huang, S.C.; Meng, Y.R. Evaluation of ANN and SVM classifiers as predictors to the diagnosis of students with learning
disabilities. Expert Syst. Appl. 2008, 34, 1846–1856. [CrossRef]
23. Heinze, G.; Wallisch, C.; Dunkler, D. Variable selection-A review and recommendations for the practicing statistician. Biom. J.
2018, 60, 431–449. [CrossRef]
Algorithms 2025, 18, 20 27 of 27

24. Pryke, A.; Mostaghim, S.; Nazemi, A. Heatmap visualization of population based multi objective algorithms. In Proceedings of
the Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization: 4th International Conference, EMO 2007, Matsushima, Japan, 5–8 March 2007;
Proceedings 4. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 361–375.
25. Little, R.J.A.; Rubin, D.B. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
26. Johnson, M.; Davis, E. A Comparative Study of Outlier Detection Algorithms for Data Cleansing. Data Sci. J. 2021, 20, 1–15.
[CrossRef]
27. Witten, I.H.; Frank, E.; Hall, M.A.; Pal, C.J. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 4th ed.; Morgan Kaufmann:
Burlington, MA, USA, 2016.
28. Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009.
29. Chawla, N.V.; Lazarevic, A.; Hall, L.O.; Bowyer, K.W. (Eds.) SMOTEBoost: Improving prediction of the minority class in boosting.
In European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003.
30. Guo, X.; Yin, Y.; Dong, C.; Yang, G.; Zhou, G. On the class imbalance problem. In Proceedings of the 2008 ICNC’08 Fourth
International Conference on Natural Computation, Jinan, China, 18–20 October 2008.
31. James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
Volume 112.
32. Zhang, L. Using Decision Tree Classification Algorithm to Predict Learner Outcomes. J. Educ. Data Sci. 2023, 7, 45–60.
33. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
34. Hosmer, D.W., Jr.; Lemeshow, S.; Sturdivant, R.X. Applied Logistic Regression; John Wiley & Sons.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
35. Cover, T.; Hart, P. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1967, 13, 21–27. [CrossRef]
36. Friedman, J.H. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. Ann. Stat. 2001, 29, 1189–1232. [CrossRef]
37. Chen, T.; Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 August 2016; pp. 785–794.
38. Townsend, J.T. Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Percept. Psychophys. 1971, 9, 40–50. [CrossRef]
39. Park, S.H.; Goo, J.M.; Jo, C.H. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: Practical review for radiologists. Korean J. Radiol.
2004, 5, 11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Aghbalou, A.; Sabourin, A.; Portier, F. On the bias of K-fold cross-validation with stable learners. Proceedings of The 26th
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023, 206, 3775–3794.
41. Arrieta, A.B.; Díaz-Rodríguez, N.; Del Ser, J.; Bennetot, A.; Tabik, S.; Barbado, A.; García, S.; Gil-López, S.; Molina, D.; Benjamins,
R.; et al. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf.
Fusion 2020, 58, 82–115. [CrossRef]
42. Roshan, K.; Zafar, A. Utilizing XAI technique to improve autoencoder based model for computer network anomaly detection
with shapley additive explanation (SHAP). arXiv 2021, arXiv:2112.08442. [CrossRef]
43. Gramegna, A.; Giudici, P. SHAP and LIME: An evaluation of discriminative power in credit risk. Front. Artif. Intell. 2021,
4, 752558. [CrossRef]
44. MICS|unicef. Retrieved from Survey. 2019. Available online: https://mics.unicef.org/surveys?display=card&f[0]=region:
2521&f[1]=datatype:0&f[2]=year:2019 (accessed on 22 November 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.