Validation study of the Chinese Early Development Instrument (CEDI)

BMC Pediatrics

Chun Bong Chow²  Winnie Wai Sim Lau²  Sharon Sui Ngan Ng¹  Nirmala Rao³  Sophia Ling Li²  Patrick Ip² 

[1] Department of Early Childhood Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong, China;Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, China;Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, China

关键词: Socioeconomic gradient;    Chinese population;    Validity;    Early child development;    Early Development Instrument;   

Others  :  1144523
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-13-146

 received in 2013-07-17, accepted in 2013-09-20,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a comprehensive instrument used to assess school readiness in preschool children. This study was carried out to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the EDI (CEDI) in Hong Kong.

Methods

One hundred and sixty-seven children were purposefully sampled from kindergartens in two districts with very different socioeconomic statuses. The CEDI was assessed for concurrent validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The developmental vulnerability identified using the CEDI scores was further examined in relation to the socioeconomic status of the district and family.

Results

The CEDI displayed adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 on its five domains. Concurrent validity was supported by moderate and significant correlations (0.25 to 0.49) on the relevant domains between the CEDI and a comparable measure. The level of test-retest reliability was good, with a kappa statistic of 0.89. In general, girls outperformed boys, particularly in the social, emotional and communication/general knowledge domains. After controlling for the uneven distribution of sex, children from socioeconomically disadvantaged districts and families were found to be at greater risk of developmental vulnerability than their more advantaged counterparts.

Conclusion

The evidence gathered in this study supports the CEDI’s use as a valid and reliable instrument in assessing school readiness and identifying developmentally vulnerable children in Chinese populations. Its preliminary findings on the socioeconomic gradients of child development suggest that the CEDI is a promising tool for leveraging evidence-based, context-sensitive policies and practices to foster the development of all children.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ip et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA: From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of early childhood development. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press; 2000.
• [2]Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ: Resilience to childhood adversity: results of a 21-year study. In Resilience and vulnerability : adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Edited by Luthar SS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:130-156.
• [3]Blair C: School readiness - integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. Am Psychol 2002, 57(2):111-127.
• [4]Janus M, Offord DR: Development and psychometric properties of the early development instrument (EDI): a measure of children’s school readiness. Can J Behav Sci 2007, 39(1):1-22.
• [5]Guhn M, Goelman H: Bioecological theory, early child development and the validation of the population-level early development instrument. Soc Indic Res 2011, 103:193-217.
• [6]Forer B, Zumbo BD: Validation of multilevel constructs: validation methods and empirical findings for the EDI. Soc Indic Res 2011, 103(2):231-265.
• [7]Janus M, Brinkman SA, Duku EK: Validity and psychometric properties of the early development instrument in Canada, Australia, United States, and Jamaica. Soc Indic Res 2011, 103(2):283-297.
• [8]Janus M, Brinkman S, Duku E, Hertzman C, Santos R, Sayers M, Schroeder J, Walsh C: The early development instrument: a population-based measure for communities (a handbook on development, properties, and use). Ontario, CA: Offord Centre for Child Studies; 2007.
• [9]Lloyd JEV, Hertzman C: From kindergarten readiness to fourth-grade assessment: longitudinal analysis with linked population data. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68(1):111-123.
• [10]Cushon JA, Vu LTH, Janzen BL, Muhajarine N: Neighborhood poverty impacts children’s physical health and well-being over time: evidence from the early development instrument. Early Educ Dev 2011, 22(2):183-205.
• [11]Hertzman C, Bertrand J: Children in poverty and the use of early development instrument mapping to improve their worlds. Paediatr Child Health 2007, 12(8):687-692.
• [12]Kohen D, Oliver L, Pierre F: Examining the effects of schools and neighbourhoods on the outcomes of kindergarten children in Canada. Int J Speech-Lang Pa 2009, 11(5):404-418.
• [13]Carpiano RM, Lloyd JE, Hertzman C: Concentrated affluence, concentrated disadvantage, and children’s readiness for school: a population-based, multi-level investigation. Soc Sci Med 2009, 69(3):420-432.
• [14]Noble KG, McCandliss BD, Farah MJ: Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in neurocognitive abilities. Dev Sci 2007, 10(4):464-480.
• [15]Bradley RH, Corwyn RF: Socioeconomic status and child development. Annu Rev Psychol 2002, 53:371-399.
• [16]Hong Kong population census. [http://www.census2011.gov.hk webcite]
• [17]Hambleton RK: Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Edited by Hambleton RK, Merenda PF, Spielberger C. London: L.E.A; 2005:3-38.
• [18]Brinkman S, Gregory T, Harris J, Hart B, Blackmore S, Janus M: Associations between the early development instrument at age 5, and reading and numeracy skills at ages 8, 10 and 12: a prospective linked data study. Child Indic Respublished online on 14 April 2013. DOI 10.1007/s12187-013-9189-3.
• [19]Rao N, Sun J, Ng SSN, Ma K, Becher Y, Lee D, Lau C, Zhang L, Chow CB, Ip P: The Hong Kong early child development scale: a validation study. Child Indic Res 2013, 6(1):115-135.
• [20]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, UK: University Press; 1995.
• [21]Brinkman SA, Silburn S, Lawrence D, Goldfeld S, Sayers M: Investigating the validity of the Australian early development index. Early Educ Dev 2007, 18(3):427-451.
• [22]Donaldson SI, Grant-Vallone EJ: Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. J Bus Psychol 2002, 17(2):245-260.
• [23]Wilson A, Piek JP, Kane R: The mediating role of social skills in the relationship between motor ability and internalizing symptoms in pre-primary children. Infant Child Dev 2013, 22(2):151-164.
• [24]Whittingham K, Fahey M, Rawicki B, Boyd R: The relationship between motor abilities and early social development in a preschool cohort of children with cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil 2010, 31(6):1346-1351.
• [25]Cohen NJ, Menna R, Vallance DD, Barwick MA, Im N, Horodezky NB: Language, social cognitive processing, and behavioral characteristics of psychiatrically disturbed children with previously identified and unsuspected language impairments. J Child Psychol Psyc 1998, 39(6):853-864.
• [26]Beck L, Kumschick IR, Eid M, Klann-Delius G: Relationship between language competence and emotional competence in middle childhood. Emotion 2012, 12(3):503-514.