Mary Sayers

Investigating the Validity of the Australian Early Development Index

This article aims to contribute to the ongoing evaluation of the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) by investigating its construct and concurrent validity with a subsample of 642 children aged 4 to 5 years drawn from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). Construct validity was examined by considering the theoretical consistency of the network of correlations between the AEDI subconstructs and the independently reported multimethod measures of early learning skills and development collected contemporaneously by the LSAC. Concurrent validity was examined by assessing the extent to which children who were “developmentally vulnerable” on the AEDI domains corresponded with the LSAC outcome indices classification of children as “developmentally at risk.” Moderate to large correlations were observed between each of the AEDI domains and subconstructs when compared to analogous teacher-rated LSAC measures, with lower levels of association observed for parent-rated LSAC measures. Concurrent validity was explored; however, with no criterion measure with which to assess the AEDI, findings are inconclusive prior to predictive validity assessment. Future waves of the LSAC will collect information on the childrens abilities at school and developmental outcomes, enabling further interpretation of these concurrent and construct validity findings by triangulation and predictive validity analyses.

Prevalence and correlates of special health care needs in a population cohort of Australian children at school entry.

Objective: Children with special health care needs are an important population for educational and health service providers. Accurate information about the prevalence and characteristics of these children and their families is needed to inform the planning and development of systems of care, yet data in Australia are currently lacking. Methods: This study utilizes population-level data from the Australian Early Development Index, a teacher-rated checklist, to provide estimates of the prevalence and developmental and demographic characteristics of Australian children with special health care needs on entrance to school. Results: Four percent of children were reported with established special health care needs, and a further 18% were identified by teachers as “of concern.” These children showed higher rates of vulnerability across all domains of development. Although children with established special health care needs were represented across demographic profiles, proportions were greater among boys, those from lower socioeconomic status communities, and Indigenous and older children. In contrast, those living in more remote settings were as likely to be identified as “of concern” as their peers but were less likely to have established special health care needs. Conclusions: These findings have important implications for service provision and policy development. There are substantial opportunities to reorient schooling and early childhood systems to better detect and accommodate the needs of these children.

Population monitoring of language and cognitive development in Australia: The Australian Early Development Index

The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) is a population measure of child development. The AEDI measures Language and Cognitive Development, Social Competence, Emotional Maturity, Physical Health and Wellbeing, and Communication Skills and General Knowledge. In Australia these data are collected by teachers for children in their first full time year of schooling. The aim of this paper is to aid peoples understanding and interpretation of population measures such as the AEDI. With a greater awareness of the merits and complexities of population data clinicians and allied health professionals can play a vital role in aiding communities and policy makers to interpret and act upon the data in an intelligent way. This paper is primarily descriptive providing background information on the development and use of the instrument utilizing one of the 5 developmental domains (Language and Cognitive Development) as an example. The results show a complex relationship between children residing in differing socio-economic regions, children with English as their primary or secondary language and children who are able or not able to effectively communicate in English.

The Process and Policy Challenges of Adapting and Implementing the Early Development Instrument in Australia.

Research Findings: Australian state and federal governments have increasingly recognized early childhood as a critical period for investing in interventions. At the same time, a number of organizational, structural, and environmental responses have been put in place to build the capacity of communities to better support children and their families. It was in this policy environment of increasing investment in community-level interventions to promote outcomes for children that the need emerged in Australia for a population measure of early childhood development. This article outlines some of the process and policy challenges associated with the introduction and adaptation of a population measure of early child development—the Early Development Instrument (EDI)—by Australian communities, which culminated in its adoption as a national measure of early childhood development in 2008. It highlights the need to develop both a strategic and psychometric approach to successfully implement any measure that requires community-wide participation. Practice or Policy: There were particular challenges to embedding the AEDI, and therefore data about early childhood developmental outcomes, within policy processes. These are discussed in terms of the adaptation and validation process in Australia, the development of novel methods of data collection for national implementation, the benefits of cross-national comparisons, and the policy impact and environment that has been necessary for longer term sustainability.

Building Better Communities for Children: Community Implementation and Evaluation of the Australian Early Development Index

Since 2004 the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) has been completed in 54 Australian communities over seven states and territories on more than 30,000 children. A concurrent systematic evaluation of community implementation and use of the AEDI was undertaken that included both a process and impact component. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the evaluation findings between 2004 and 2006. Results have shown there are a number of barriers and facilitators for communities in implementing the AEDI, disseminating results, and planning for community actions. The evaluation findings indicate AEDI implementation helps raise awareness of the importance of early childhood development, assists communities to work more collaboratively and to strategically plan actions to work towards improving outcomes for children.

Early development of emerging and English-proficient bilingual children at school entry in an Australian population cohort

Children who enter school with limited proficiency in the language of instruction face a range of challenges in negotiating this new context, yet limited data have been available to describe the early developmental outcomes of this subpopulation in the Australian context. The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) is a teacher-rated checklist that measures five important domains of child development: physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, and communication skills and general knowledge. In 2009, the AEDI was completed for 97.5% of Australian children in their first year of schooling (N = 261,147; M = 5 years, 7 months of age), providing a unique opportunity to explore the cross-sectional associations between language background, proficiency in English, and early developmental outcomes at the population-level. Logistic regression analyses revealed that, compared to their peers from English-speaking backgrounds, bilingual children who were not yet proficient in English had substantially higher odds of being in the “vulnerable” range (bottom 10th percentile) on the AEDI domains (OR = 2.88, p < .001, to OR = 7.49, p < .001), whereas English-proficient bilingual children had equal or slightly lower odds (OR = .84, p < .001, to OR = .97, ns). Future research with longitudinal data is now needed to establish causal pathways and explore long term outcomes.