Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, 103:267 | Cite as

The Early Development Instrument: An Examination of Convergent and Discriminant Validity

  • Shelley Hymel
  • Lucy LeMare
  • William McKee
Article

Abstract

The convergent and discriminant validity of the Early Development Instrument (EDI), a teacher-rated assessment of children’s “school readiness”, was investigated in a multicultural sample of 267 kindergarteners (53% male). Teachers evaluations on the EDI, both overall and in five domains (physical health/well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language/cognition, communication/general knowledge), were related to direct, child-based assessments of performance on two standardized measures of school readiness, and measures of phonological awareness and early social competence. Regression analysis indicated that together the four comparison measures accounted for 36% of variance in overall EDI scores, each making a significant and unique contribution. Results supported the convergent validity of overall EDI scores but not the discriminant validity of EDI domain scores. Moreover, correlations between EDI scores and comparison measures varied widely across teachers, suggesting considerable individual differences in teacher’s ability to evaluate school readiness relative to direct, child-based assessments, and confirming that the EDI is more appropriate for deriving inferences at higher aggregated levels such as community or region. The validation of EDI domain scores remains an important challenge in future research.

Keywords

School readiness Early Development Instrument Validity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from the British Columbia Ministry of Education and the Human Early Learning Partnership of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. We also extend our thanks to the school districts, schools, teachers and students that participated in this research and to the graduate and undergraduate students from the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University who assisted in data collection and coding. Finally, we extend special thanks to Victor Glickman and Clyde Hertzman for their support, but especially for their patience.

References

  1. Bracken, B. C. (1998). Bracken basic concept scale-revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Brigance, A. H. (1997). Brigance K and 1 screen, revised. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Assoc.Google Scholar
  3. Brinkman, S. A., Silburn, S., Lawrence, D., Goldfeld, S., Sayers, M., & Oberklaid, F. (2007). Investigating the validity of the Australian early development index. Early Education & Development, 18(3), 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambers, J., & Windschitl, P. (2004). Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of non-motivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 813–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clancy, C. H., & Pianta, R. C. (1993). The metropolitan readiness test as a descriptor and predictor of children’s competence in kindergarten through grade two. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 11(2), 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connor, S. & Brink, B. (1999). Understanding the early years: Community impacts on child development. Human Resources Development Canada, Working paper W-99-6E. (available at http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/nlscy/uey/1999-000092/page00.shtml).
  7. Doherty, G., & Stuart, B. (1997). The association between childcare quality, ratio and staff training: A Canada-wide study. Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 6(2), 127–138.Google Scholar
  8. Duku, E. & Janus, M. (2004). Stability and reliabilityof the early development Instrument: A popu-lation-based measure for communities (EDI). Paper presented at the annual Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences Research Day, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.Google Scholar
  9. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised. Manual for Forms L and M. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  10. Ford, L. Dahinten, V. S., Merkel, C., Chong, S. L., & Moraes, S. (March, 2007). Investigating the validity of the early development instrument at the child level. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  11. Forget-Dubois, N., Lemelin, J., Boivin, M., Dionne, G., Séguin, J. R., Vitaro, F., et al. (2007). Predicting early school achievement with the EDI: A longitudinal population-based study. Early Education & Development, 18(3), 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glascoe, F. P. (1997). Technical report for the Brigance screens. Anonymous. Billlerice, MA: Curriculum Assoc.Google Scholar
  13. Graue, E. (2006). The answer is readiness–now what is the question? Early Education and Development, 17, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guhn, M., Gadermann, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007a). Does the EDI measure school readiness in the same way across different groups of children? Early Education & Development, 18(3), 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guhn, M., Janus, M., & Hertzman, C. (2007b). The early development instrument: Tranlating school readiness assessment into community actions and policy planning. Early Education & Development, 18(3), 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heath, S., & Hogben, J. (2004). Cost-effective prediction of reading difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47(4), 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herford, D. (2003). The comprehensive test of phonological processing. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 15, 226–229.Google Scholar
  18. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (1996). A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going. Journal of General Psychology, 123(3), 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irwin, L., Siddiqi, A. & Hertzman, C. (2007). World Health Organization commission on the social determinants of health early childhood development: A powerful equalizer www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/globalknowledgehub/WHO_ECD_Final_Report.pdf.
  20. Janus, M. (2006). The Early Development Instrument (EDI): The national and international perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association as part of a symposium organized by Martin Guhn entitled, “Translating school readiness assessment into community actions and policy planning: The Early Development Instrument Project”. San Francisco, CA, April 2006.Google Scholar
  21. Janus, M. & Offord, D. (2000). Readiness to learn at school. ISUMA, 1 (2), 71–75. (available at www.offordcentre.com/readiness/pubs/publications.html).
  22. 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), 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Janus, M., Walsh, C., Viveiros, H., & Offord, D. R. (2002). Community, neighborhood, and 5-yeaar-olds readiness to learn at school. Paper presented at the head start conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Keating, D. P. (2007). Formative evaluations of the early development instrument: Progress and prospects. Early Education & Development, 18(3), 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keating, D. P., & Hertzman, C. (1999). Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social biological, and educational dynamics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kershaw, P., Forer, B., Irwin, L. G., Hertzman, C., & Lapointe, V. (2007). Toward a social care program of research: A population-level study of neighborhood effects on child development. Early Education & Development, 18(3), 535–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kershaw, P., Irwin, L., Trafford, K., & Hertzman, C. (2005). The British Columbia Atlas of child development (1st ed.). Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Human Early Learning Partnership and Western Geographical Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kimmel, E., & Paget, K. D. (2001). The early screening inventory. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 14, 450–453.Google Scholar
  29. Konold, T. R., & Cox, R. C. (2005). Empirically-derived, person-oriented patterns of school readiness in typically-developing children: Description and prediction to first-grade achievement. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., Neemann, J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., & Garmezy, N. (1995). The structure and coherence of competence from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 66, 1635–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy scales of children’s abilities. San Antonio, TX: Psych. Corporation.Google Scholar
  32. McKnight, T., & Schwarting, G. (2004). Bracken school readiness assessment. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 16, 155–157.Google Scholar
  33. Meisels, S. J. (1987). Uses and abuses of developmental screening and school readiness testing. Young Children, 42(4–6), 68–73.Google Scholar
  34. Meisels, S. J. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 39–66). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.Google Scholar
  35. Meisels, S. J., Marsden, D. B., Wiske, M. S., & Henderson, L. W. (1997). Early screening inventory: Revised. examiner’s manual. Ann Arbor, MI: Rebus Inc.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From neurons to neighbourhoods: The science of early childhood development. In: Committee on integrating the science of early childhood development, J. Schonkoff. & D.Phillips (Eds.). Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nurss, J. R., & McGauvran, M. E. (1995). Metropolitan readiness tests (6th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement (Psychological Corporation).Google Scholar
  38. Pellegrini, A. D., & Glickman, C. D. (1990). Measuring kindergartners’ social competence. Young Children, 45, 40–44.Google Scholar
  39. Savage, R., & Carless, S. (2004). Predicting curriculum and test performance at age 7 from pupil background, baseline skills and phonological awareness at age 5. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sayers, M., Coutts, M., Goldfeld, S., Oberklaid, F., Brinkman, S., & Silburn, S. (2007). Building better communities for children: Community implementation and Evaluation of the Australian early development index. Early Education & Development, 18(3), 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider, B. (1993). Children’s social competence in context; The contrib-utions of family school and culture. Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schulz, L. H., & Selman, R. L. (2000) The meaning and measurement of social competence from a developmental perspective, Working paper 153. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Sturner, R. A., Funk, S. G., & Green, J. A. (1984). Predicting kindergarten school performance using the McCarthy scales of children’s abilities. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 9(4), 495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Topping, K. J., Bremner, W. G., & Holmes, E. A. (2000). Social competence: The social construction of the concept. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Vernon-Feagans, L., & Blair, C. (2006). Measurement of school readiness. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  47. Zumbo, B. D., & Forer, B. (in press). Testing and measurement from a multilevel view: Psychometrics and validation. In J. Bovaird, K. Geisinger, & C. Buckendahl (Eds.), High stakes testing in education—science and practice in K-12 Settings [Festschrift to Barbara Plake]. Washington, DCs: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations