Social Indicators Research

, Volume 122, Issue 3, pp 925–944 | Cite as

Setting the Scope for Early Child Development Instrument (EDI): A Psychometric Re-examination of the Tool with Alberta Data

Article
  • 258 Downloads

Abstract

The early child development instrument (EDI) has become an important tool for screening children at entry into kindergarten in order to assess their development in five areas. After more than 10 years of its initiation and widespread use, it’s time to rethink about the tool’s theoretical and empirical basis. In this study, we applied factor analytic methods to re-examine the factorial structure and test the goodness of fit of several alternative models, using the 2011 EDI data for the province of Alberta. We also analyzed all 103 items from a classical test theory perspective to investigate the relevance of items to the definition of vulnerability postulated by the EDI developers. Changes need to be made to accommodate alternative factorial structure and, if possible a short form of EDI is to be developed, as there is evidence that reliability is high even with fewer items. A number of questions are addressed, aligned with specific objectives.

Keywords

Early child development Psychometric analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Item analysis Alberta 

References

  1. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  2. Andrich, D., & Styles, I. (2004). Final report on the psychometric analysis of the early development instrument (EDI) using the rasch model: A technical paper commissioned for the development of the Australian early development instrument (AEDI). Royal Children’s Hospital.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. Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). Australian early development index 2012: Summary report (updated November 2013). Canberra: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  5. Dolan, C. V. (1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47(2), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernald, L. C. H., Kariger, P., Engle, P., & Raikes, A. (2009). Examining early child development in low income countries: A toolkit for the assessment of children in the first five years of life. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  7. Fletcher, T. D. (2010). Psychometric: Applied psychometric theory. R package version 2.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychometric.
  8. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forer, B., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Validation of multilevel constructs: Validation methods and empirical findings for the EDI. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 231–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Guhn, M., Gadermann, A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Does the EDI measure school readiness in the same way across different groups of children? Early Education and Development, 18, 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halfon, N., Russ, S., Oberklaid, F., Bertrand, J., & Eisenstadt, N. (2009). An International comparison of early childhood initiatives: From services to systems. Commonwealth Funnd pub. No. 1241 Retrieved June 18, 2013. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/May/An-International-Compar.
  13. Hymel, S., LeMare, L., & McKee, W. (2011). The early development instrument: An examination of convergent and discriminant validity. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janus, M., Brinkman, S. A., & Duku, E. K. (2011). Validity and psychometric properties of the early development instrument in Canada, Australia, United States, and Jamaica. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janus, M., & Duku, E. (2007). The school entry gap: Socioeconomic, family, and health factors associated with children’s school readiness to learn. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janus, M., Duku, E., & Stat, P. (2005a). Development of the short early development instrument (S-EDI). Hamilton, CANADA: Offord Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural, Neurosciences, McMaster University.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janus, M., Walsh, C., & Duku, E. (2005b). Early development instrument: Factor structure, sub-domains and multiple challenge index. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioural Sciences, McMaster University, Annual Research Day.Google Scholar
  19. Janus, M., Willms, J. D., & Offord, D. R. (2000). Psychometric properties of the early development instrument (EDI): A teacher-completed measure of children’s readiness to learn at school entry. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Jöreskog, K. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL (pp. 2002–2005). Lincolnwood, IL: Technical report, Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krishnan, V. (2011). A comparison of principal components analysis and factor analysis for uncovering the early development instrument (EDI) domains. Community-University Partnership (CUP), Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Krishnan, V. (2013). The early child development instrument (EDI): An item analysis using classical test theory (CTT) on Alberta’s data. Community-University Partnership (CUP), Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  24. Magnusson, D. (1967). Test theory. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  25. Muthén, B. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muthén, B., Du Toit, S. H., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Psychometrika, 75, 1–45.Google Scholar
  28. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012a). Mplus 7.2 for windows. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  29. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012b). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  30. Offord Centre for Child Studies. (2013). Retrieved June 18, 2013. http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/bibliography_abstracts.html.
  31. R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/.
  32. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang-Wallentin, F., Jöreskog, K. G., & Luo, H. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables with misspecified models. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(3), 392–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of EducationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Early Child Development Mapping (ECMap) Project, Community-University Partnership (CUP), Faculty of ExtensionUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations