Investigating the Validity of the Australian Early Development Census.

Sarah Howells, Ha Trong Nguyen, Sally Brinkman, Francis Mitrou

Abstract readValidation Study

In one paragraph

Article in Child psychiatry and human development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Congenital Heart Defects, Special Needs, and Developmental Vulnerability in Singleton Children at School Age: A Population-Based Data Linkage Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah HowellsEducation Futures, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. Sarah.Howells@unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8150-3317

Ha Trong NguyenTelethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2240-8942

Sally BrinkmanEducation Futures, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7538-4844

Francis MitrouTelethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6639-2030

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1160185

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article continues evaluation of the construct validity of the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) through comparison with linked data from a sample of 2216 4-5 year old children collected as part of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). This builds on the construct validity assessment of Brinkman et al. (Early Educ Dev 18(3):427-451, 2007) based on a smaller sample of linked Australian Early Development Instrument (AvEDI) and LSAC children, in which moderate to large correlations were apparent between teacher-rated AvEDI domains and subconstructs and LSAC measures, with lower levels apparent for parent reported LSAC measures. In the current study, the data showed moderate to low correlations between the domains and subdomains from the AEDC and teacher reported LSAC data. Differences in testing times, data sources (e.g. teachers versus carers) and levels of exposure to formal schooling at the time of testing are all discussed to account for the observed outcomes.

Indexed as

CensusesChild DevelopmentAustraliaChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleParentsReproducibility of ResultsChild developmentConstruct validityWell-beingYoung children

Identifiers

PMID36871258

DOI10.1007/s10578-023-01502-3

PMCPMC11485057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.