ArticleBMC public health2013
A cross-sectional pilot study of the Scottish early development instrument: a tool for addressing inequality.
Article in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The bio-psycho-social determinants of health: Reflections on the CIAR Population Health Program (1987-2003).Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Unveiling early childhood health inequities by age five through the national neighborhood equity index and the early development instrument.SSM - population health · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a self-regulation scale within the German version of the Early Development Instrument.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
- Psychometric properties and factor structure of the early development instrument in a sample of Jordanian children.BMC psychology · 2022Article
- Population-Level Data on Child Development at School Entry Reflecting Social Determinants of Health: A Narrative Review of Studies Using the Early Development Instrument.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Psychometric properties and contextual appropriateness of the German version of the Early Development Instrument.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
- Does Place Matter? An International Comparison of Early Childhood Development Outcomes between the Metropolitan Areas of Melbourne, Australia and Montreal, Canada.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Neighbourhood socioeconomic status indices and early childhood development.SSM - population health · 2017Article
- Linking the early development instrument with the ICF-CY.International journal of developmental disabilities · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly childhood is recognised as a key developmental phase with implications for social, academic, health and wellbeing outcomes in later childhood and indeed throughout the adult lifespan. Community level data on inequalities in early child development are therefore required to establish the impact of government early years' policies and programmes on children's strengths and vulnerabilities at local and national level. This would allow local leaders to target tailored interventions according to community needs to improve children's readiness for the transition to school. The challenge is collecting valid data on sufficient samples of children entering school to derive robust inferences about each local birth cohort's developmental status. This information needs to be presented in a way that allows community stakeholders to understand the results, expediting the improvement of preschool programming to improve future cohorts' development in the early years. The aim of the study was to carry out a pilot to test the feasibility and ease of use in Scotland of the 104-item teacher-administered Early Development Instrument, an internationally validated measure of children's global development at school entry developed in Canada.
methodsPhase 1 was piloted in an education district with 14 Primary 1 teachers assessing a cohort of 154 children, following which the instrument was adapted for the Scottish context (Scottish Early Development Instrument: SEDI). Phase 2 was then carried out using the SEDI. Data were analysed from a larger sample of 1090 participants, comprising all Primary 1 children within this school district, evaluated by 68 teachers.
resultsThe SEDI displayed adequate psychometric and discriminatory properties and is appropriate for use across Scotland without any further modifications. Children in the lowest socioeconomic status quintiles were 2-3 times more likely than children in the most affluent quintile to score low in at least one developmental domain. Even in the most affluent quintile though, 17% of children were 'developmentally vulnerable', suggesting that those in need cannot be identified by socioeconomic status alone.
conclusionsThe SEDI offers a feasible means of providing communities with a holistic overview of school readiness for targeting early years' interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.