II Workshop Internacional - EDI Information Community Planning Evaluation Policy ECD

The EDI-Informing community planning,

evaluation and policy for ECD outcomes

Sally Brinkman:

Chief Scientific Officer – Int. EDI Consortium and

National Australian EDI Epidemiologist.

Eric Duku:

Chief Statistician – Int. EDI Consortium and

Chief Statistician – Canadian EDI

“A large number of children at a

small risk for school failure may

generate a much greater burden

of suffering than a small number

of children with a high risk”

(Based on Rose 1992, Offord et al. 1998)

What is the EDI?

• The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a community measure of young children’s development.

• The EDI Checklist consists of around 100 questions completed by the child’s teacher based on their knowledge of the child

• It is designed for use with whole populations of children (based on geographical or administrative boundaries)

• The checklist was originally designed in Canada to measure child development between 4 and 6 years of age.

What is the EDI

• The EDI measures 5 developmental domains:

– Physical health and well-being

– Social competence

– Emotional maturity

– Language and cognitive development.

– Communication skills and general knowledge.

The EDI is a measure of how well the community has raised their children before school. It is an index of the outcomes of early child development and of children’s ability to take advantage of the learning environments offered to them by schooling

Why a community or population

approach?

• It is important to understand and think about the social and environmental influences on child development

• Moving the focus of effort from the individual to the community can make a bigger difference

• Allowing communities the opportunity to “shift the curve” of a whole population and therefore improve outcomes for many children

Low HighOutcome domain

Nu

mb

er

of

Ch

ild

ren

Vulnerability

cut-off

EDI Population curve

Children

performing

well

Average

score

Children

developmentally

vulnerable

Low High

% o

f C

hild

ren

Gap narrows

Targeted

strategies

decrease

numbers of

vulnerable

Universal strategies-entire

population moves

Outcome measure

Uses of the EDI • To report on the early childhood development outcomes

for whole of populations of children, small geographic areas and special populations

• To measure progress over time in improving early childhood development outcomes

• To facilitate community mobilisation around early childhood development through the AEDI implementation process and results

• To enable schools and teachers to look back at the development of children before entering school and look forward to children’s needs once at school

• To make state and territory, national and international comparisons

How the AEDI findings are used

• Stimulate discussions about early child development among teachers, parents, schools, community groups, and policymakers

• Identify communities and neighborhoods where children may be at risk developmentally

• Plan and evaluate ECD initiatives

• Document the effect, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ECD programs.

• Leverage better-informed ECD policies

• Match programs with investment opportunities.

Local

Regional

State

National

Case Studies:

Australia

Indonesia

Canada

Jamaica

Mozambique

Kosovo

Australia

Understanding Early Childhood

Development in Australia• Before the AEDI we had no way of consistently understanding how

children were developing across Australia as they came to the end of their pre-school years

• 2002-2003 North Metro Perth EDI Study (2002 n=200, 2003 n=4500)

• 2003 National meeting of experts to consider whether Australia needed an individual measure or a population measure of ECD. Resounding endorsement for a population measure

• 2004-2007 Development and piloting of the AEDI, overwhelmingsuccess for communities (n=40,000)

• 2007-2008 Agreement by COAG for the AEDI as a national progress measure of ECD for Australia

• 2009 National AEDI Census in recognition of the need for all communities to have local ECD information to improve outcomes for children

National AEDI Results• 24% of Australian children surveyed were

“developmentally vulnerable” on one or more domains of the AEDI

11.9% of Australian children surveyed were “developmentally vulnerable” on two or more domains of the AEDI

67.9% of Australian children surveyed were “performing well” on one or more domains of the AEDI

Australia – AEDI Children 5-6 yrs.%

Vu

lnera

ble

on

at

least

on

e a

rea

of

EC

D

Highest

10%

10%

-25%

25%

-50%

50%

-75%

75%

-90%

Lowest

10%

SEIFA disadvantage

30

20

10

“Janus” communities – exceptions to the rule(healthy deprived areas & unhealthy wealthy areas)

66th %ile

Social disparity increases over timeAs children move from year 3 to year 5, the disparity among

those meeting literacy standards grows

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year 3 Year 5

Prop

ortio

n M

eetin

g St

anda

rd (%

)

High

Low

Socio-

economic

Status:The Widening Gap

WALNA Data, DoE 2006

Map 15: Level of disadvantage according to the SEIFA index

SEIFA is derived indicators such as low income and educational attainment, high unemployment, jobs in

relatively unskilled occupations and variables that reflect disadvantage. The state quintile categories are

referenced to state. City of Cockburn, WA

Prepared by: AEDI National Support Centre

Source: ABS Census 2001 Basic

Community Profile

AtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess

BeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliarBeeliar

South LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth LakeSouth Lake

YangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebupYangebup

CoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogeeCoogee

Bibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra Lake

SpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwood

CoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellupCoolbellup

Hamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton HillHamilton Hill

SEIFAIndex of disadvantage

1. Most disadvantaged2.3.4.5. Least disadvantaged

Proportion of children vulnerable on one or more domains


Source: AEDI Communities Data 2006City of Cockburn, WA

AtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwell

SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess





Bibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwood



Proportion of children vulnerableN=Percent

49.1 to 53.340 to 49.133.3 to 4018.9 to 33.311.5 to 18.9

Participation in preschool in the year before entering school

Proportion of children that attended preschool program including in a day care centre .

City of Cockburn, WA


Source: AEDI Communities Data 2006


AtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwellAtwell

SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess




Bibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra LakeBibra Lake


SpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwoodSpearwood


Preschool participationN=Percent

38.6 to 48.148.1 to 64.364.3 to 83.983.9 to 90.990.9 to 96.3


Source: AEDI Communities Data 2006

AEDI Summary Table

Abbreviations used:

Phys Physical health and wellbeing

Soc Social competence

Emo Emotional maturity

Lang Language and cognitive skills

Com Communication and general knowledge

Vuln1 Vulnerable on one or more domains

Vuln 2 Vulnerable on two or more domains

No Total number of children surveyed

Proportion of children developmentally vulnerable Average scores

Suburb No Phys Soc Emo Lang Com Vul 1 Vul 2 Phys Soc Emo Lang Com

Atwell 121 4.3 12.1 9.5 9.5 9.5 20.7 10.3 9.09 8.96 8.65 8.72 8.75

Beeliar 57 16.4 29.1 20.0 26.0 29.1 49.1 32.7 8.50 8.13 7.12 7.02 6.25

Bibra Lake 55 1.9 3.8 3.8 11.3 1.9 18.9 3.8 9.55 8.96 8.60 7.69 8.75

Coogee 28 11.5 3.8 0.0 11.5 3.8 11.5 11.5 9.77 9.06 8.65 7.31 10.00

Coolbellup 17 26.7 20.0 13.3 20.0 26.7 53.3 20.0 7.73 8.96 8.46 7.31 6.25

Hamilton Hill 42 23.1 17.9 17.9 15.4 12.8 33.3 20.5 9.09 8.75 7.31 8.08 7.50

South Lake 50 8.3 8.3 14.6 27.1 12.5 35.4 20.8 9.09 9.17 8.46 7.12 8.44

Success 74 2.9 10.0 7.1 13.0 10.0 21.4 11.4 9.09 8.75 7.50 7.69 8.75

Yangebup 62 10.0 11.7 16.9 25.0 21.7 40.0 28.3 8.64 7.60 7.69 6.92 6.88

Community report – summary table

Mobilizing community action for children

3. Community asset mapping

The AEDI community planning process

1. Identifying areas of particular need

e.g. Mission Australia funds 3 year play group, language program & mums group at school

4. Mobilising community action

2. Assessing the local distribution of children’s

developmental vulnerability

Governance – National AEDI Census

State AEDI Coordinators

Key tasks:

Provide state wide leadership, engage key stakeholders and support communities, schools and

teachers to successfully implement the AEDI

Resources:

State AEDI Coordinator Training and ongoing support from AEDI NSC

Local AEDI Coordinators

Key tasks:

Raise awareness of the AEDI in the

community

Resources:

Community Preparation & Implementation

Guide

Training for communities

Community Strategies Toolkit

Schools and teachers

Key tasks

Teachers complete AEDI Training (1 hour)

and AEDI Checklist

Principals invoice for Teacher Relief

Resources:

AEDI Guide for Teachers

AEDI Teacher Training

AEDI Guide for Principals

National AEDI Partnership (CCCH/TICHR)

Ultimate responsibility for the AEDI Program

National AEDI Support Centre (NSC)

Mapping, analytical, database (ACER), overall project management and support to states

COAG

DEEWR

McMaster

Int. EDI Consortium

Indonesia

ECED Project Challenges

• 12.7 Million (US$) – 2013 (loan)

• Beneficiaries: 738,000 children ages 0 to

6 in 6,000 poor communities (dusuns) in

3,000 villages within 50 districts

• an average of 123 children per dusun

Study Objectives

• To what extent the ECED project improves

children's development, attendance and

readiness for school

• To what extent the ECED project improves

parents awareness and practices

• To what extent the ECED project increases the

availability and utilisation of ECED services

• How do these impacts differ by gender, wealth,

and level of service delivery at baseline

• What factors contribute to success and failures

of the ECED intervention

Challenges

• Community driven project

• Research design

Three components:– Increasing the delivery of ECED services in

targeted poor communities using a Community Development district based approach

– Developing a sustainable system for ECED quality

– Establishing effective program management, monitoring, and evaluation

Data to be collected

• Village characteristics

• Household survey:– Household economy

– Parent background

– Parent knowledge, attitudes, beliefs child rearing

• Child outcome data : indicators of child development across domains

Instruments

• Philippines ECD study (developmental

milestones, anthropometrics, nutrition)

• IFLS (Rand)

• SDQ

• EDI

Canada

“EDI data in conjunction with other data can be used to create, maintain, and monitor community support for programs and policies affecting young children…. Analysis can increase public understanding of the factors which contribute to early child development, inspiring a commitment to fundraising, policy development and other initiatives.”

Source: Canadian Association of Principals – Student Readiness to Learn and the

School Ready to Teach: an Internet Essay and Collection of Selected Documents:

www.schoolfile.com/cap_start/schoolready.html (2003 )

Canadian Normative Data

Collected from 2004/5 to 2006/7

(n=176,621)

• Percent of children scoring low on 1 more

domains = 27%

• Percent of children scoring low on 2 or

more domains = 13.6%

Factors increasing the vulnerability risk

• Child health (low) 2.35

• Gender (boy) 2.32

• Income (low) 2.02

• Family status (not intact) 1.83

• Age (younger half) 1.36

• Literacy (looking at books) 1.35

• Parent smoking 1.29

Source: Janus & Duku 2007

Odds ratios

• Parent-reported neighbourhood quality

(includes playground, safety, health,

transport, presence of families with

children etc.)

• Parent-reported frequency of contacts

with neighbours (talking, visiting)

Source: NLSCY/UEY/EDI 1998/9

Important neighbourhood

variables

Canada: % vulnerable by SES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

very poor poor not poor well-off

%

Source: NLSCY/UEY 1999-2000; EDI 1999-2000

31.929.1

23.1

13.7

Toronto

Survey of response to EDI results

in Ontario and Manitoba

• 68.4% report changes have been made

• Areas of most frequent change: Areas of least frequent change:

Parenting Programs non-profit recreation behaviour programs in schools programs

child and family centres ESL programs for children

library programs

speech/language programs

• Educational programs most likely to be implemented

• Low school readiness associated with higher percentage of Child & Family Centers, and higher percentage of programs aimed at Aboriginal children with special needs

Kosovo

Kosovo

• In collaboration with World Bank

• ECD Programme Evaluation

Objectives

• Assessing using the EDI, whether children who attended ECD centres were more advantaged developmentally over those who did not attend ECD centres

• To gather information on the households of children in the main survey for the assessment of correlates of EDI domains and outcomes

Kosovo

Data Collection

• 1st wave

– Children from 9 municipalities

– Teachers filled out forms

– Test-retest on smaller sample of 51 ECD children

from 2 communities

• 2nd wave

– 111 children selected at random using proportional

allocation to ensure representativeness from all 11

communities

Kosovo

Instruments used

• EDI (teacher filled): short version

developed in collaboration with the World

Bank; translated into Albanian

• Teacher demographics

• Household Form (2nd wave) • Parent interview

Kosovo – sample descriptives

group Variables categories ECD

(n=219) non-ECD (n=241)

Total (n=460)

Gender Females 42.9% 50.2% 46.7%

Attend pre-school Yes 3.7% 0.0% 1.7%

Class child attends One 95% 100% 97.6%

Age based on EDI 6.71 (0.59) 6.96 (0.60) 6.84 (0.61)*

Kosovo: % vulnerable by SES

56.3

30.8

4043.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4

%

Jamaica

Jamaica


• Part of process for establishing a national monitoring system of children from pre-school through Grade 3

• Over 2,000 schools in Jamaica

• School selection using stratified randomization, based on the government’s determinations of rural/urban and small/medium/large.

• All 4 year olds attending the selected schools were included.

• Parental consent eventually determined who participated in the study.

JamaicaInstruments

• Teacher assessments: the EDI (full 2003/4 version)

• Parent assessment: Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales

• Direct assessments : McCarthy Scales of Children’s abilities and PPVT

• SES – demographic and household information from parental interview

Jamaica

Sample description

• Sample size, n = 151

• % females = 49

• # schools = 18

• Mean age at completion 4.8 (0.4)

• Good internal reliability and concurrent

validity

JAMAICA - validity

Language &

Cognitive Dev

Communication

& Gen Knowledge

PPVT .396 .331

McCarthy-verbal .361 .318

-perceptual .401 .346

-quantitative .443 .308

-cognitive memory .371 .312

-cognitive general .448 .383

Jamaica

% vulnerable by SES

18.921.1

34.2

47.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

%

Mozambique

Mozambique


• Pre-pilot

• Full version of EDI adapted for use

• Translation into Portuguese

• Test retest

• Items removed because…

Mozambique – sample descriptives

• Sample size, n = 78

• Mean age = 6.3 years

• % females = 55.1

• # schools = 4

• Teachers

• Good test-retest reliability

Early Development Instrument (EDI)

Versão em Português para Moçambique

Portuguese version for Mozambique

Numero de identificação da escola-Número do aluno

Copie o número do aluno segundo a marcação após a questão ST20 no

questionário para o professor

P[__][__] D[__][__] PA[__][__] L[__][__]APC[__][__]

UR[__]AE[__][__][__]NAF[__][__][__] ESCOLA [__][__] ALUNO [__][__]

Nome da escola: _____________________________________________

Nome do professor: __________________________________________

Nome da criança: ____________________________________________

Data de nascimento da criança: Dia _____/ Mes______/Ano

Sexo da criança: M F

Data em que completou o questionário : Dia _____/ Mes______/Ano

A criança possui necessidades educativas especiais ? Sim Não

Se sim, por favor explique:

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

______________

Língua Materna da criança

Changane Chope Ronga Outra? ______________________

A criança se comunica bem em sua língua materna?

Sim Não Não sabe

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validation studies

• Teacher to parent inter rater reliability

• Teacher to teacher aid inter rater reliability

• Repeat testing intra rater reliability

• Construct and concurrent validity

• Predictive validity

• Rasch psychometric property analyses

• Indigenous and minority culture validation studies

Publications downloadable from:

www.australianedi.org.au and www.offordcentre.com

Adaptation Process

Adaptation• Ethnographic scan (age of schooling etc etc)

• Content validity

• Translation / back translation

• Translation of the teacher guide

• Adaptation to local language, context, deletion/addition of

items (cultural relevance, behaviour constructs)

• Pilot implementation (inter-rater reliability, test-retest, validity

assessment with other instrumentation/assessment)

• License agreement with McMaster Uni, Offord Centre.

EDI vs. Traditional

Evaluation tools

EDI• Impacts at multiple levels of the ecological model

• Can be used as an outcome and predictor

• The data is not to be owned by one organisation and as information is aggregated it can be freely shared amongst varying sectors

• When the data is mapped it provides an easily understandable dissemination strategy that facilitates community engagement and thus mobilisation

• Communities use the results together with other information such as national and local statistics, community, family, andservice provider feedback to develop strategic plans.

EDI• The data prompts service providers to review existing services and

programs and to consider new initiatives that might be needed.

• Prompts universal service provision with the aim to better all children while also reducing future inequality.

• Provides a means to evaluate community development initiatives.

• As more countries utilise the EDI, in the future we will be able to make international, national, jurisdictional and local level comparisons

• Quick, cheap

• Can be completed by teachers, child care workers or parents - as not a diagnostic does not require referral to allied/medical professionals

• Eric Duku – [email protected]

• Sally Brinkman – [email protected]

• www.offordcentre.com/readiness

• www.australianedi.org.au

• http://www.councilecd.ca/internationaledi/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness

http://www.australianedi.org.au/

http://www.councilecd.ca/internationaledi/

Date post:	22-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fundacao-maria-cecilia-souto-vidigal
View:	220 times
Download:	2 times