A cross-sectional pilot study of the Scottish early development instrument: a tool for addressing inequality

BMC Public Health

John Frank²  Josephine N Booth¹  Stephanie McNicol¹  Rosemary Geddes²  Lisa Marks Woolfson¹ 

[1] School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 40 George St, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK;Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9DX, UK

关键词: Health inequalities/disparities;    Socioeconomic factors;    Scotland;    Child development;    Early development instrument;   

Others  :  1161437
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-1187

 received in 2013-01-30, accepted in 2013-12-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Early childhood is recognised as a key developmental phase with implications for social, academic, health and wellbeing outcomes in later childhood and indeed throughout the adult lifespan. Community level data on inequalities in early child development are therefore required to establish the impact of government early years’ policies and programmes on children’s strengths and vulnerabilities at local and national level. This would allow local leaders to target tailored interventions according to community needs to improve children’s readiness for the transition to school. The challenge is collecting valid data on sufficient samples of children entering school to derive robust inferences about each local birth cohort’s developmental status. This information needs to be presented in a way that allows community stakeholders to understand the results, expediting the improvement of preschool programming to improve future cohorts’ development in the early years. The aim of the study was to carry out a pilot to test the feasibility and ease of use in Scotland of the 104-item teacher-administered Early Development Instrument, an internationally validated measure of children’s global development at school entry developed in Canada.

Methods

Phase 1 was piloted in an education district with 14 Primary 1 teachers assessing a cohort of 154 children, following which the instrument was adapted for the Scottish context (Scottish Early Development Instrument: SEDI). Phase 2 was then carried out using the SEDI. Data were analysed from a larger sample of 1090 participants, comprising all Primary 1 children within this school district, evaluated by 68 teachers.

Results

The SEDI displayed adequate psychometric and discriminatory properties and is appropriate for use across Scotland without any further modifications. Children in the lowest socioeconomic status quintiles were 2–3 times more likely than children in the most affluent quintile to score low in at least one developmental domain. Even in the most affluent quintile though, 17% of children were ‘developmentally vulnerable’, suggesting that those in need cannot be identified by socioeconomic status alone.

Conclusions

The SEDI offers a feasible means of providing communities with a holistic overview of school readiness for targeting early years’ interventions.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Woolfson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Geddes R, Haw S, Frank J: Interventions for Promoting Early Child Development for Health: An Environmental Scan with Special Reference to Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy; 2010.
• [2]Commission on Social Determinants of Health: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO; 2008. [Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health]
• [3]Irwin L, Siddiqi A, Hertzman C: Early child development: A powerful equalizer. Final Report for the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: WHO; 2007.
• [4]Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y (Eds): A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
• [5]McCain M, Mustard J: Reversing the real brain drain: Early years study. Toronto: Publications Ontario; 1999. [Final report]
• [6]Shonkoff J, Phillips D: From neurons to neighbourhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
• [7]Heckman J: Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 2006, 312:1900-1902.
• [8]Marmot M: Fair society, healthy lives. London: University College London; 2010.
• [9]Ludwig J, Phillips D: The benefits and costs of head start. Social Policy Report 2007, 21:3-19.
• [10]Hertzman C: Tackling inequality: get them while they’re young. BMJ 2010, 340:346-348.
• [11]Smith J, Brooks-Gunn J, Klebanov P: Consequences of living in poverty for young children’s cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In Consequences of growing up poor. Edited by Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. New York: Russell Sage; 1997:132-189.
• [12]Dunn JR: Socio-economic inequalities in healthy child development: The evidence grows. J Epidemiol Community Health 2012, 66:193.
• [13]McCartney G, Walsh D, Whyte B, et al.: Has Scotland always been the ‘sick man’ of Europe? An observational study from 1855 to 2006. Eur J Public Health 2012, 22:756-760.
• [14]Gray R, Bonellie S, Chalmers J, et al.: Contribution of smoking during pregnancy to inequalities in stillbirth and infant death in Scotland 1994–2003: retrospective population based study using hospital maternity records. BMJ 2009, 339:b3754.
• [15]Levin K, Davies C, Topping G, et al.: Inequalities in dental caries of 5-year-old children in Scotland, 1993–2003. Eur J Public Health 2009, 19:337-342.
• [16]Scottish Government Health Analytical Services Division: Long-term monitoring of health inequalities. Edinburgh: Scottish Governmen; 2008. [First report on headline indicators]
• [17]Frank J, Haw S: Best practice guidelines for monitoring socioeconomic inequalities in health status: lessons from Scotland. Milbank Q 2011, 89:658-693.
• [18]Hertzman C, Williams R: Making early childhood count. CMAJ 2009, 180:68-71.
• [19]Janus M, Offord D: Developmental and psychometric properties of the early development instrument: a measure of children’s school readiness. Can J Behav Sci 2007, 39:1-22.
• [20]Janus M, Walsh C, Duku E: Early Development Instrument: Factor structure, sub-domains and multiple challenge index. Hamilton: Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University; 2005.
• [21]Goldfield S, Sayers M, Brinkman S, et al.: The process and policy challenges of adapting and implementing the early development instrument in Australia. Early Educ Dev 2011, 20:911-978.
• [22]Forer B, Zumbo B: Validity of multilevel constructs: Validation findings and empirical methods for the EDI. Soc Indic Res 2011, 103:231-235.
• [23]Janus M, Brinkman S, Duku E: Validation and psychometric properties of the early development instrument in Canada, Australia, United States and Jamaica. Soc Indic Res 2011, 103:283-297.
• [24]Lloyd J, Hertzman C: From kindergarten readiness to fourth-grade assessment: longitudinal analysis with linked population data. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:111-123.
• [25]Roos L, Brownell M, Lix L, et al.: From health research to social research: privacy, methods, approaches. Soc Sci Med 2008, 66:117-129.
• [26]Roos N, Roos L, Brownell M, et al.: Enhancing policymakers’ understanding of disparities: relevant data from an information-rich environment. Milbank Q 2010, 88:382-403.
• [27]Scottish Government: Growth and development – Pre-school education. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2013. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Children/TrendNursery webcite (accessed 16 September 2013)
• [28]Offord Centre for Child Studies: Updated normative II. [Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Canada, 2012] Available at http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/reports.html webcite (accessed 13 November 2012)
• [29]Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research: A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia – AEDI National Report. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education; 2009.
• [30]Janus M, Duku E: Result of the Phase II implementation of the EDI in Scotland. Technical Report. Hamilton: Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University; 2012.
• [31]Wright CM, Jeffrey SK, Ross MK, Wallis L, Wood R: Targeting health visitor care: lessons from starting well. Arch Dis Child 2009, 94:23-27.
• [32]Wood R, Wilson P: General practitioner provision of preventive child health care: analysis of routine consultation data. BMC Fam Pract 2012, 13:73. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Royal Children’s Hospital Centre for Community Child Health in Melbourne, the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, and the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research: Mirrabooka Community, Western Australia. Melbourne: Royal Children’s Hospital; 2010. Available at http://training.aedi.org.au/Secondary-Pages/About-the-video-case-studies/Mirrabooka-Community-Western-Australia.aspx webcite (accessed 18 January 2013)
• [34]Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, Wetzel R, Nickel J, Bullinger M: Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24(12):1199-1220.
• [35]Eiser C, Morse R: Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Qual Life Res 2001, 10(4):347-357.
• [36]Pickard AS, Knight SJ: Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Med Care 2005, 43(5):493-499.
• [37]Rebok G, Riley A, Forrest C, Starfield B, Green B, Robertson J, Tambor E: Elementary school-aged children’s reports of their health: a cognitive interviewing study. Qual Life Res 2001, 10(1):59-70.
• [38]Duku E, Janus M: Stability and reliability of the Early Development Instrument: A population based measure for communities (EDI). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Paper presented at the 16th Annual Research Day, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University; 2004.
• [39]Janus M, Offord D: Development and psychometric properties of the early development instrument (EDI): a measure of children’s school readiness. Can J of Beh Sc 2007, 39(1):1-22.
• [40]Janus M, Hertzman C, Guhn M, Brinkman S, Goldfeld S: Reply to Li, D’Angiulli and Kendall: the early development index and children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development 2009, 29(1):83-87.