Child Indicators Research

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 471–489 | Cite as

Investigation of the Cross-National Equivalence of a Measurement of Early Child Development

  • Eric DukuEmail author
  • Magdalena Janus
  • Sally Brinkman


The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a measure of children’s developmental health at school entry in five domains, developed in Canada. A shorter, 48-item version of the EDI covering the same domains, created based on Canadian population data was used. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the domains of the 48-item EDI and the invariance of the measurement models of the domains of the 48-item EDI by sex and across the two South Asian countries, the Philippines and Indonesia. Data for 946, 3 to 5-year-olds in the Philippines, and for 3244, four-year-olds in Indonesia were used. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) subscales were used for purposes of testing concurrent validity. The internal consistencies of the domains of the EDI except for Physical Health and Wellbeing were acceptable. Concurrent validity of the EDI domains with the SDQ subscales was acceptable and associations were in the expected directions. Modifications to the measurement models for the domains were made, where necessary, to allow for cross-loading items across the domains and to improve fit indices without over-fitting. Multiple group analysis using categorical confirmatory factor analysis within the Structural Equation Modeling framework showed that the models for the social competence and emotional maturity domains fit very well across sex and across the two countries. The findings are discussed in the context of requirements and conditions for the validation in modification and application of measures in international contexts.


Early child development (ECD) Cross-national equivalence Early Development Instrument (EDI) 


  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  2. Brinkman, S., Silburn, S., Lawrence, D., Goldfeld, S., Sayers, M., & Oberklaid, F. (2007). Investigating the validity of the Australian Early Development Index. Early Education sand Development, 18(3), 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: a reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Klerk, G. (2008). Cross-cultural testing. In M. Born, C. D. Foxcroft, & R. Butter (Eds.), Online Readings in Testing and Assessment. International Test Commission. Retrieved from
  10. Forget-Dubois, N., Lemelin, J. P., Boivin, M., & Dionne, G. (2007). Predicting early school achievement with the EDI: a longitudinal population-based study. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry., 40(11), 1337–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11), S78–S94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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(3), 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. International Test Commission (2010). International test commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Retrieved 15/01/2012, from
  16. Janus, M. (2006). Measuring community early child development. Canadian Association of Principals Journal, 14(3), 14–16.Google Scholar
  17. Janus, M. (2009). Steps in adapting and implementing the EDI. Retrieved 22/04/2011, from
  18. Janus, M., & Duku, E. (2005). Development of the short Early Development Instrument (S-EDI). Report for the World Bank, JuneGoogle Scholar
  19. Janus, M., & Gaskin, A. (2014). School readiness. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Janus, M., Brinkman, S., Duku, E., Hertzman, C., Santos, R., & Sayers, M. (2007). The Early Development Instrument: A population-based measure for communities. A handbook on development, properties and use. Hamilton: Offord Centre for Child Studies.Google Scholar
  22. Janus, M., Brinkman, S., & Duku, E. (2008). Pilot test results: Child development outcome instruments to be included in UNICEF’s MICS Household Survey, Final Report for UNICEF.Google Scholar
  23. Janus, M., Brinkman, S., & Duku, E. (2011). Validity and psychometric properties of Early Development Instrument in Canada, Australia, United States, and Jamaica. Social Indicators Research, 103, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muthén, B.,& Asparouhov, T. (2002). Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiple-group and growth modeling in Mplus. Mplus Web Notes: No. 4. Retrieved 22/04/2011, from
  26. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2008a). Mplus 5.1 for windows. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  27. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2008b). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (1998). The structured assessment of personality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pradhan, M., Brinkman, S., Beatty, A., Satriawan, E., Maika, A., deRee, J., et al. (2013). Study protocol for the evaluation of a community based early childhood education and development program in Indonesia: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with supplementary matched control group. Trials, 14(1), 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prince, M. (2008). Measurement validity in cross-cultural comparative research. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 17(3), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reichenheim, M. E., & Moraes, C. L. (2007). Operationalizing the cross-cultural adaptation of epidemiological measurement instruments. Revista de Saúde Pública, 41(4), 665–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teresi, J. A. (2006). Overview of quantitative measurement methods equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Medical Care, 44(11), s39–s49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. World Health Organization (2013). Nurturing human capital along the life course: Investing in early child development. Meeting Report 10–11 January 2013, WHO: Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Offord Centre for Child Studies & Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural NeurosciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Fraser Mustard Centre, Telethon Kids InstituteUniversity of Western AustraliaSubiacoAustralia

Personalised recommendations