Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

The evaluation questions addressed in this Section are: To what extent are the mandate and objectives of the NLSCY relevant? To what extent does the NLSCY and its associated activities complement/supplement/duplicate that of other Federal/Provincial governments or institutions? Were other existing sources examined prior to NLSCY design?

2.1 Current Canadian Research of Children

A review of key recent Canadian research on children shows that the NLSCY does not duplicate any other Canadian study currently being undertaken or having been recently completed. Other Canadian research tends to have smaller samples; to be regionally rather than nationally based; and to be topic specific. For example:

• the Health of Canada's Youth Study, a longitudinal study surveying youth from across Canada on topics relating to health-risk factors (exercise/ leisure time activity, nutrition and dental care, ailments and medications and relationships with others), does not include children of less than 11 years of age, a major emphasis in the NLSCY;

• the Ontario Child Health Study (1983, 1987), a cross-sectional Provincial survey which studied the distribution and possible causes of neurosis, somatization, conduct disorder, and hyperactivity, is neither longitudinal, national nor as comprehensive as the NLSCY;

• the Canada Youth and AIDS Study, conducted in 1988 to determine the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of Canadian youth with respect to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, is very topic specific, cross-sectional, and surveys only adolescents. The NLSCY, on the other hand covers a broad range of topics (meaning that NLSCY has the potential to provide longitudinal data on AIDS knowledge and relate it to a wide variety of factors not covered in the Canada Youth and AIDS Study), is longitudinal (so that the knowledge of AIDS can, in theory, be studied over time) and focuses on children as well as youth;

• the Canadian National Child Care Study (1988), one of the largest and most comprehensive surveys ever conducted in Canada and designed to address a number of policy relevant issues regarding Canadian families and child care, overlaps very little with the NLSCY. The NLSCY, according to potential users and key informants, does not place emphasis on child care issues. Furthermore, the Child Care Study was a cross-sectional survey, and therefore unable to assess the impacts of child care over time; and

• the Laidlaw Foundation Children at Risk Programme, does not overlap with the NLSCY because it does not yet generate original data. In fact, with a budget of $1 million per year over 5 years to develop new perspectives and strategies to improve the quality of life and opportunities of children and youth, the Laidlaw study promises to be a significant user of the NLSCY results.

The above mentioned studies all differ from the NLSCY, which appears to be unique in its combined characteristics of national sample, broad topic coverage, and longitudinal methodology. No other Canadian study provides such broad longitudinal data on children. Therefore the mandate and objectives of the NLSCY are very relevant. The uniqueness of the NLSCY was seen as resulting from a strong developmental process which included screening existing longitudinal and other research models, with the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee (see Section 3).

2.2 Current Relevance of the NLSCY

The relevance of the NLSCY was clearly indicated throughout the evaluation: data from all research components point to the fact that the NLSCY will be a valuable tool for future research and that it will contribute to the increased knowledge of the characteristics of Canadian children on a national scale. For example:

• over 90 percent of the Potential Users rated the importance of the NLSCY data base for identifying risk factors to children as either very important or somewhat important.⁷

• 100 percent of the Delphi Methodologists agreed that the NLSCY will be useful in producing increased knowledge of the socio-economic and health characteristics of children in Canada.⁸

• 96 percent of Key Informants felt that the NLSCY would be a useful tool in determining risk factors affecting the health and well-being of children and youth.⁹

• Discussion Group Participants all emphasized the importance of longitudinal data in helping to inform policy and develop programs to help benefit Canadian children.

Furthermore, a review of studies similar to the NLSCY in other countries found that many such studies have lasted decades longer than initially intended. For example government (funders) and academics (designer/users) in Hawaii and Britain extended their longitudinal surveys — the National Child Development Study in Britain and the Kauai Study in Hawaii — after noting the importance of their results, the amount of research being completed using their data bases, and the impact of the new information on the development of more effective social programs. This evidence, combined with the fact that longitudinal data are necessary for the analysis of causal relationships, is supportive of the relevance of the NLSCY's objectives and mandate.

2.3 The Future Relevance of the NLSCY

The likelihood of continued relevance of NLSCY in the future was also clearly indicated throughout the evaluation. Since the main focus of the NLSCY is health and welfare related, and because the data is based on children, it was pointed out that the NLSCY data will always be relevant to Canadian society.¹⁰ In fact, many evaluation participants indicated an expectation that the study will grow in relevance and usefulness over time as more NLSCY longitudinal data becomes available.

Footnotes

7	Potential Users were asked to rate the importance of the NLSCY as a data base for identifying risk factors to children as: (1) Very Important; (2) Somewhat Important; (3) Somewhat Unimportant; (4) Very Unimportant; or (5) Don't Know. 100 percent of Delphi methodologists/specialists noted the NLSCY as: (1) Very Important; or (2) Somewhat Important.
8	Delphi methodologists were asked to rate the potential usefulness of the NLSCY in producing increased knowledge of the socio-economic/health characteristics of children in Canada on a five point rating scale where "1" means "not at all useful", "3" means neither useful nor not useful, and "5" means very useful. The percentage given refers to the number of people giving ratings of 4 or 5. 96 percent of Key Informants gave a similar rating.
9	Key Informants were asked to rate the potential usefulness of the NLSCY in determining the risk factors affecting the health and well-being of children and youth on a seven point rating scale where "1" means "not at all useful", "4" means neither useful nor not useful, and "7" means very useful. The percentage given refers to the number of people giving ratings of 5, 6 or 7. 100 percent of Delphi Panelists gave a similar rating.
10	92.8 percent of the Delphi Panelists, and almost all (99 percent+) of Potential Users agreed that the NLSCY will continue to be relevant or extremely relevant ten years from now.