Social Indicators Research

, Volume 103, Issue 2, pp 183–191 | Cite as

Validation Theory and Research for a Population-Level Measure of Children’s Development, Wellbeing, and School Readiness

  • Martin Guhn
  • Bruno D. Zumbo
  • Magdalena Janus
  • Clyde Hertzman
Article

Abstract

This paper delineates general validity and research questions that are underlying an ongoing program of research pertaining to the Early Development Instrument (EDI, Janus and Offord 2007), a population-level measure, on which teachers rate kindergarten children’s developmental outcomes in the social, emotional, physical, cognitive, and communicative domains. It describes the large-scale research projects that are using the EDI to measure children’s developmental outcomes for entire populations (e.g., provinces, cities). Given the uniqueness of the EDI’s use as monitoring tool, or social indicator, for children’s developmental health at an early age, we spell out the opportunities and challenges that these projects provide with regard to validation research. The article sets the stage for the special issue, as it is dedicated to showcase the different aspects of the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical validation research as well as the collaborative community-based projects that are currently being undertaken with respect to the EDI.

Keywords

Validation research Validity theory Social indicator Child development Wellbeing 

References

  1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: U.S and U.S.S.R. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child development: Volume 1, theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Koons, H. K. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronbach, L. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Education Quality and Accountability Office (2010). Parents’ perspectives: The importance of provincial testing and the information it provides about children’s learning. Retrieved, on September 12 2010, from http://www.eqao.com/Research/pdf/E/Parent_Research_Findings_ENG.pdf.
  10. Guhn, M., & Goelman, H. (in press). Bioecological theory, early child development, and the validation of the population-level Early Development Instrument. Social Indicators Research. Google Scholar
  11. Guhn, M., Janus, M., & Hertzman, C. (2007). The Early Development Instrument: Translating school readiness assessment into community actions and policy planning. Early Education & Development, 18, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hogan, T. P., & Agnello, J. (2004). An empirical study of reporting practices concerning measurement validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 802–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janus, M. (2006). Tools for measuring the well-being of children at school entry: International perspectives, specific applications in Jordan and Kosovo. In R. Lynkeus (Ed.), Tools for measuring the well-being of children (pp. 59–67). Genoa, Italy: Fondazione Istituto Mediterraneo per l¹Infanzie MedChild Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Janus, M., Brinkman, S., Duku, E., Hertzman, C., Santos, R., Sayers, M., et al. (2007). The Early Development Instrument: A population-based measure for communities. A handbook on development, properties, and use. Hamilton, ON: Offord Centre for Child Studies. Retrieved on June 10, 2008, from http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/pubs/2007_12_FINAL.EDI.HANDBOOK.pdf.
  15. Janus, M., & Offord, D. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children’s school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 1–22.Google Scholar
  16. Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. Keating, D. P. (2007). Formative evaluations of the Early Development Instrument: Progress and prospects. Early Education & Development, 18, 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lissitz, R. W. (Ed.). (2009). The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Messick, S. (1975). The standard program: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Qualls, A. L., & Moss, A. D. (1996). The degree of congruence between test standards and test documentation within journal publications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rubin, D. B. (2008). For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 808–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Rowley, G. L. (1989). Generalizability theory. American Psychologist, 44, 922–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. United Nations (1994). Information on social development publications and indicators in the United Nations system. Working paper No. 7. New York: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Van der Gaag, J., & Dunkelberg, E. (2005, May). Measuring children’s well-being in the Mediterranean—Toward a Human Development Index for children. Paper presented at the Urban Children and Youth in the MENA Region: Addressing priorities in education conference, Dubai. Retrieved from http://www.araburban.org/employee/menacpi/uploadfiles/Jacques_van_der_Gaag.pdf.
  27. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Validity: Foundational issues and statistical methodology. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics, Vol. 26: Psychometrics (pp. 45–79). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  28. Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65–82). Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Guhn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruno D. Zumbo
    • 1
  • Magdalena Janus
    • 3
  • Clyde Hertzman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Human Early Learning PartnershipUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations