Sally Brinkman

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.

Jurisdictional, socioeconomic and gender inequalities in child health and development: analysis of a national census of 5-year-olds in Australia

Objectives Early child development may have important consequences for inequalities in health and well-being. This paper explores population level patterns of child development across Australian jurisdictions, considering socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Design Census of child development across Australia. Setting and participants Teachers complete a developmental checklist, the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI), for all children in their first year of full-time schooling. Between May and July 2009, the AEDI was collected by 14 628 teachers in primary schools (government and non-government) across Australia, providing information on 261 147 children (approximately 97.5% of the estimated 5-year-old population). Outcome measures Level of developmental vulnerability in Australian children for five developmental domains: physical well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills and communication skills and general knowledge. Results The results show demographic and socioeconomic inequalities in child development as well as within and between jurisdiction inequalities. The magnitude of the overall level of inequality in child development and the impact of covariates varies considerably both between and within jurisdiction by sex. For example, the difference in overall developmental vulnerability between the best-performing and worst-performing jurisdiction is 12.5% for males and 7.1% for females. Levels of absolute social inequality within jurisdictions range from 8.2% for females to 12.7% for males. Conclusions The different mix of universal and targeted services provided within jurisdictions from pregnancy to age 5 may contribute to inequality across the country. These results illustrate the potential utility of a developmental census to shed light on the impact of differences in universal and targeted services to support child development by school entry.

Inequalities in child healthy development: Some challenges for effective implementation

0277-9536/

Data Resource Profile: The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI)

e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.008 The reports Closing the Gap in a Generation (CSDH, 2009) and Fair Society, Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review, 2010) are important for several reasons. First, they provide a framework of broad policy recommendations on which to base efforts to reduce both social and health inequalities. Second, they provide a clarion call for action to develop integrated policy responses that are both deep and broad, and span portfolios and jurisdictions. Third, they synthesize over 30 years of accumulated research on social factors relevant to health inequalities. Many readers of Social Science & Medicine helped generate the more than 1000 references in these documents. The current reports are not the first of their kind (Acheson, 1998; Townsend & Davidson, 1982) and they have their own particular histories as products of public, intellectual and political recognition of the importance of acting to reduce health inequalities. Our purpose here is to reflect on the implications of the reports, and while they are wide-ranging in scope, our comments are limited to aspects dealing with inequalities in early childhood development (ECD). Improving healthy development of children under 5 by giving them the best start in life is the number one recommendation of the UK report (The Marmot Review, 2010) and features prominently in the WHO Commission report (CSDH, 2009). These reports recommend building on preand post-natal programs that ensure child survival and better health (Victora, 2009), and extending interventions to include integrated programs of social, emotional, language, behavioural and cognitive

The influence of the neighborhood physical environment on early child health and development: A review and call for research

Every 3 years, the Australian Government conducts a developmental census across the entire population of children in their first year of full-time schooling (median age 5 years). The first developmental census was conducted in 2009, including 261,147 children, and in 2012 data were collected on 289,973 children-representing 97.5% and 96.5% of the estimated eligible population, respectively. The questionnaire is completed by teachers on the basis of at least 1 months knowledge of the child, including aspects of physical, social, emotional, language and cognitive development, as well as data on special needs. Teachers are also asked to include details of the childs care arrangements and attendance in early education programmes in the years preceding school. Demographic and geographical data are recorded at the individual and area levels.

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

This review examines evidence of the association between the neighborhood built environment, green spaces and outdoor home area, and early (0-7 years) child health and development. There was evidence that the presence of child relevant neighborhood destinations and services were positively associated with early child development domains of physical health and wellbeing and social competence. Parents׳ perceptions of neighborhood safety were positively associated with children׳s social-emotional development and general health. Population representative studies using objective measures of the built environment and valid measures of early child development are warranted to understand the impact of the built environment on early child health and development.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Efficacy of infant simulator programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy: a school-based cluster randomised controlled trial in Western Australia.

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.