Flag of Canada
Government of Canada Symbol of the Government of Canada
 
Français Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
About Us Services Where You Live Policies & Programs A-Z Index Home
   
Human Resources and Social Development
   What's New  Our Ministers
 Media Room  Publications
 Forms
 E-Services  Frequently Asked Questions  Accessibility Features

  Services for: Individuals Business Organizations Services Where You Live

Understanding the Early Years - Early Childhood Development in the Dixie Bloor Community of Mississauga, Ontario - September 2003


PreviousContentsNext

II. The outcomes for children of Dixie Bloor

A. How the outcomes were measured

This section provides more information about the specific measures of children's outcomes. A child's cognitive skills, behaviour, and physical health and well-being outcomes were measured in two ways, using the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) Community Study.

Five domains of the EDI (teacher report)

  1. Physical health and well-being: children's motor skills, energy levels, fatigue, and clumsiness.
  2. Social competence: self-confidence, tolerance, and children's ability to get along with other children, to accept responsibility for their own actions, to work independently.
  3. Emotional health and maturity: children's general emotional health and maturity. It also identifies minor problems with aggression, restlessness, distractibility, or inattentiveness, as well as excessive, regular sadness.
  4. Language and cognitive development: mastery of the basics of reading and writing, interest in books, and numerical skills (e.g., recognising numbers and counting).
  5. Communication skills and general knowledge: children's general knowledge, their ability to articulate clearly, and their ability to understand and communicate in English or French.

Cognitive skills (from the NLSCY - direct assessments of the child)

Vocabulary Skills (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Revised — PPVT-R): assesses a child's receptive or hearing vocabulary. The children hear a word said aloud and are asked to point to one of four pictures that they believe corresponds to the word.

Developmental Level (Who Am I?): is based on copying and writing tasks, which are designed to test children's ability to conceptualize and to reconstruct a geometrical shape and to use symbolic representations, as illustrated by their understanding and use of conventional symbols such as numbers, letters, and words. Children are asked to copy five shapes (such as a circle or a diamond) and to write their names, numbers, letters, words, and a sentence. Because the tasks are not dependent on language, Who Am I? can be used to assess children whose knowledge of English or French is limited.

Number Knowledge Assessment: is designed to test the child's understanding of numbers. Children who do not have this understanding, or who are working in a language different from their mother tongue, often have difficulty mastering basic arithmetic and demonstrating number sense. The Number Knowledge Assessment evaluates children's understanding of quantity (more vs. less), their ability to count objects, their understanding of number sequence, and their ability to do simple arithmetic.

Behaviour outcomes (from NLSCY community study - parent report)

Measuring a child's behaviour is based on a scale administered to the person most knowledgeable about the child, which is usually the mother.5 The measurements comprise several questions, each with the same format. For example, the mother is asked how often her child cannot sit still, is restless, or is hyperactive. She answers with one of three possible responses — "never or not true"; "sometimes or somewhat true"; and "often or very true." The scale included the following elements:

Positive social behaviour: children who exhibit higher levels of positive social behaviour are more likely to try to help and comfort others. They may offer to help pick up objects that another child has dropped or offer to help a child who is having trouble with a difficult task. They might also invite their peers to join in a game.

Indirect aggression: this element identifies children who, when mad at someone, try to get others to dislike that person; who become friends with another for revenge; who say bad things behind the other's back; who say to others, "Let's not be with him/her"; or who tell secrets to a third person.

Hyperactivity: hyperactive children cannot sit still; are restless and are easily distracted; have trouble sticking to any activity; fidget; cannot concentrate, cannot pay attention for long; are impulsive; have difficulty waiting their turn in games or groups; or cannot settle to do anything for more than a few moments.

Emotional disorder/anxiety: this element identifies children who seem to be unhappy, sad, or depressed; are too fearful or anxious; are worried; cry a lot; tend to be rather solitary; appear miserable, unhappy, tearful, or distressed; are not as happy as other children; are nervous, high strung, or tense; or have trouble enjoying themselves.

Physical aggression and conduct disorder: these children get into many fights. When another child accidentally hurts them (by bumping into them, for example), they assume that the other child meant to do it, and then react with anger and fighting. Also included are children who kick, bite, or hit other children; who physically attack people; and who threaten people, are cruel, or bully others.

Inset 2 — Early Development Instrument

The Early Development Instrument contained more than 70 questions, and asked teachers the following types of questions about each child in the class.

  • Would you say that this child follows instructions, accepts responsibility, and works independently?
  • How often is the child too tired to do school work?
  • Is the child well co-ordinated?
  • Would you say that this child is upset when left by a caregiver, has temper tantrums, appears worried, or cries a lot?

Teachers were asked to comment on the child's use of language, his or her interest in books, and his or her abilities related to reading and writing. They were also asked about children's communication skills and general knowledge.

B. What we learned from teachers: results of the Early Development Instrument

The children of Dixie Bloor scored higher on four of the five domains, compared with children in the EDI-16 sample (see Table 2.1),6 with the largest difference being for Social Knowledge and Competence (0.6 points above the average, which was statistically significant). On the other three domains, its scores were comparable to the EDI-16 average.

Figure 2.1 displays box plots describing the distribution of EDI scores for Dixie Bloor compared with the EDI-16 sample. The box plots show the median and percentiles for the distribution of EDI scores for each group (See Inset 3). The median is the mid-point at which 50% of the cases fall above and 50% of the cases fall below. Percentiles refer to the percentages of cases with values falling above and below the number. Ideally, a community would want to have a high median score, with relatively short blocks above and below the median. Figure 2.1 shows that the median scores for the EDI domains are generally comparable to those of the EDI-16 sample. The exception is Social Knowledge and Competence, in which the children of Dixie Bloor achieved a median score well above the EDI-16 sample. The range of scores is indicated by the length of the boxes.7 The inter-quartile range of children in Dixie Bloor is similar to that of the EDI-16 sample.

Inset 3 - The percentile plots display the distribution of the EDI scores for each group as follows:


Table 2.1 — Mean scores on the Early Development Instrument for the Mississauga, Dixie Bloor UEY community and the comparison sample
Mississauga Dixie Bloor Community (N=289)EDI-16 Sample (N=28,250)
MeanSDMeanSD
Physical Health and Well-being8.70.98.61.1
Social Competence8.11.77.51.5
Emotional Health and Maturity8.01.77.91.5
Language and Cognitive Development8.22.08.11.9
Communication Skills and General Knowledge7.12.27.22.1
Note: Figures in blue text differ significantly (p<0 .05) from the EDI-16 sample mean.

Figure 2.1 - Box plots comparing the distribution of EDI scores for Dixie Bloor

Figure 2.2 - Percentage of children with low scores on the Early Development Instrument in Dixie Bloor

The EDI-16 was also used to establish a "low score" threshold for each EDI domain. The low-score threshold scores were set to the tenth percentile, which means that 10% of all children scored below this score for each domain. Thus, if a community had typical results, we would expect 10% of its children to score below the same threshold scores for each domain. In Dixie Bloor, the percentage of children with very low scores on the EDI was close to 10% (ranging from 8.3% to 11.5%) on four of the five tests. The prevalence of children with very low scores in Physical Health and Well-being (4.3%) was considerably below the UEY norms established with the EDI-16 sample.

The data collected as part of the Understanding the Early Years study included information about where each child resided. Therefore, an analysis was conducted that would give some indication of how children's scores on the EDI were distributed geographically. To achieve this, we determined the average score within each enumeration area, for each domain of the EDI. We then "smoothed" the average scores for each enumeration area.

Figures 2.3 through 2.7 display the geographic distribution of the EDI scores for each of the domains. For each map, the yellow and orange areas represent scores that are just below (orange) or just above (yellow) the median score of the full EDI-16 sample. Scores that are somewhat below the EDI-16 median are indicated in light red, and very low scores (which are comparable to the bottom 17% of the population) are shown in dark red. Similarly, relatively high scores are represented in light green, while very high scores (which are comparable to the top 17% of the population) are shown in dark green.

Although the distributions vary by domain, most of the EAs scoring above the median, shown as yellow to green areas, are in the western area of the community. The central and eastern areas of Dixie Bloor tend to have average scores below the median, coloured orange to dark red, in all domains except Social Competence.

Inset 4 - Smoothing data

This is a statistical technique that involves estimating the mean score for a particular EA together with the scores for all of the EAs that are geographically contiguous (that is, those that immediately surround it). Smoothing the EDI data in this way removes some of the random fluctuation due to measurement and sampling error, thereby displaying estimates of the results we would expect if all kindergarten children in the community had participated in the EDI. Smoothing also ensures that the confidentiality of individuals, or small groups of individuals, is not compromised. For a discussion of these techniques, see Fotheringham, A. S., Charlton, M., & Brunsdon, C. (1997). Measuring spatial variations in relationships with geographically weighted regression. In M. M. Fischer & A. Getis (Eds.), Recent Developments in Spatial Analysis. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.


Figure 2.3 - The geographic distribution of EDI scores for physical health and well-being

Figure 2.4 - The geographic distribution of EDI scores for social competence

Figure 2.5 - The geographic distribution of EDI scores for emotional health and maturity

Figure 2.6 - The geographic distribution of EDI scores for language and cognitive development

Figure 2.7 - The geographic distribution of EDI scores for communication skills and general knowledge

The map in Figure 2.3 shows that the children in many EAs scored at or close to the EDI-16 median score (8.8) on Physical Health and Well-being. However, there were two areas where there was a concentration of low scores, one in the central section of Dixie Bloor, and another on the southeast side.

Figure 2.4 shows that scores in Social Competence tended to exceed the EDI-16 median (7.9) in most areas. The EAs with the highest average scores tended to be in the higher SES areas and the areas adjacent to them. There was a fairly large cluster of EAs with slightly lower than average scores in the central section of the community.

Figure 2.5 shows that scores for Emotional Health and Maturity for many EAs are close to the EDI-16 median (8.2). There are relatively few areas of high-scoring EAs, but there is a large cluster of low-scoring EAs in the central section of Dixie Bloor.

Figure 2.6 shows that most EAs in Dixie Bloor exhibit scores for Language and Cognitive Development that are either slightly below the EDI median (8.8) or well below the median. There were only four EAs with average scores that were well above the EDI median. Again, there is a concentration of low scores in the central area of the community.

Figure 2.7 indicates that the majority of EAs had average scores for the Communication Skills and General Knowledge domain that were just below or just above the EDI median (7.5). However, there is a fairly large cluster in the central area with relatively low scores, and two pockets attaining relatively high scores for this domain, one to the west of the central area, and another to the southeast of it.

All five maps show a consistent pattern for the EAs regarding SES and the five EDI domains in Dixie Bloor: there is a group of EAs in the centre of the community that scored below average on all five EDI domains. In addition, there is a cluster in the southeastern section of the community that achieved relatively high scores, consistent with the local SES. The maps indicate that socio-economic background is related to EDI outcomes, but it is not a definitive predictor. Other factors that influence children's development need to be considered. These outcomes may be more fully explained when additional family and community factors are taken into consideration.

C. What we learned from parents, guardians, and the children: NLSCY community study results

In this section, we discuss the results of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth Community Study, which measures children's cognitive skills, positive social behaviour, and behaviour problems.

Table 2.2 displays the means and standard deviations of scores on the Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?), on the Positive Behaviour Scale, and on the Receptive Language (PPVT-R) Test for Dixie Bloor. Figure 2.8 displays their distributions.

Inset 5 - For the Receptive Language Test, national norms were available, and the scores are scaled such that the national mean is 100, and the standard deviation (a measure of the spread of scores) is 15. National norms were not available for the Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?), or the Positive Behaviour Scale, but to maintain some degree of comparability, they were scaled to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 for the entire sample of children who participated in the seven communities of the 2001-02 UEY project (see Table 2.2).



Table 2.2 — Mean scores on the NLSCY standardized instruments for the Dixie Bloor UEY community
MeanStandard
Deviation
Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?) (N = 112)105.213.4
Positive Behaviour Scale (N = 316)97.516.1
Receptive Language (PPVT-R) (N = 257)89.317.1
Note: Figures in blue are significantly different from the standardized mean of 100.

Figure 2.8 - Box plots comparing the distribution of scores on the Who Am I - Positive Behaviour Scale, and the PPVT-R

The average score for Dixie Bloor on the Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?) is 105.2, which is significantly above the 2001-02 UEY average of 100. However, on the other two measures, the average scores are significantly below the 2001-02 UEY average of 100: children in this community received an average score of 97.5 on the Positive Behaviour Scale, and 89.3 on the Receptive Language Test. The standard deviation on the Developmental Assessment-Who Am I?, is 13.4, so the range of scores is narrower on this test than in the 2001-02 UEY sample. On the other two tests, the standard deviations were greater than 15, indicating a wider range of scores than those in the 2001-02 UEY sample or the NLSCY sample.

Note that on the Development Assessment, 75% of the children in this community scored above the 2001-02 UEY average of 100, while on the Receptive Language test, 75% scored below it.

Figure 2.9 shows the prevalence of children with low scores on the Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?), the Positive Behaviour Scale, and the Receptive Language Test. It also shows the percentage of children deemed to have a behaviour problem, based on four measures of behaviour (hyperactivity, emotional disturbance/anxiety, aggression/conduct disorder, and indirect aggression).

Figure 2.9 - Percentage of children with low scores on the cognitive and behavioural measures (Dixie Bloor)

For each measure, a score at the 10th percentile of the 2001-02 UEY sample (for the Developmental Assessment and the Positive Behaviour Scale) or the nationally representative NLSCY sample (for the PPVT-R) was used as the threshold to define a "low score". Similarly, children with scores above the 90th percentile for the NLSCY sample on the behavioural measures were considered to have a behaviour problem. For each measure the prevalence of children in Dixie Bloor with low scores on the three developmental assessments, and the prevalence of behaviour problems, was calculated. This allows one to compare whether the prevalence of children in Dixie Bloor with significant problems in these areas is above or below the national norm of 10%.

The results indicate that the prevalence of children in Dixie Bloor with behaviour problems associated with emotional disturbance/anxiety, aggression/conduct disorders, and indirect aggression did not differ significantly from the national norms. However, this situation was not the case for hyperactivity. The prevalence of children considered hyperactive was 14.5%, which was significantly above the expected prevalence of 10%. The results also indicate a very high percentage of children with low scores on the Receptive Language test. At 28.0%, this is almost three times the expected prevalence. The prevalence of low-scoring children on the Positive Behaviour test, at 12.7%, was also above 10%, but the difference was not statistically significant. The prevalence of children with low scores on the Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?) was 4.7%, which is significantly lower than the national norm. Overall, this analysis suggests that there is a very large number of children in Dixie Bloor who are struggling with language and cognitive development, compared with national norms.

The study also included a direct measure of a child's understanding of the system of whole numbers. Scores were classified according to developmental levels:

  • Have not reached level 1;
  • Reached level 1 (usually attained by 4-year-olds);
  • Reached level 2 (usually attained by 6-year-olds);
  • Reached level 3 (usually attained by 8-year-olds).

For all of the children who did the assessment across the seven UEY sites, only 1.1% had failed to reach level 1. The majority of children (42.8%) were at level 1, or had made the transition to level 2 (54.2%). Only 1.9% of the UEY children had reached level 3. These results are as expected given that the UEY children were 5 and 6 years old.

In Dixie Bloor, 96.9% of the children sampled had either reached level 1 or had made the transition to level 2. This observation is nearly identical to the 2001-02 UEY prevalence of 97.0%. Only 1.2% of the children in this community had failed to reach level 1.

Overall, the analyses in this section indicate that Dixie Bloor has some marked strengths and weaknesses in early childhood outcomes. Its strengths lie in the areas of children's social knowledge and competence. On measures of these skills, teachers rated children above national norms. Dixie Bloor's children also demonstrated above average physical health and well-being scores. On the other hand, Dixie Bloor's weaknesses are in the areas of language and cognitive development, and emotional health and maturity. The relatively low scores on language and cognitive development, which were based on teachers' ratings of children's mastery of the basics of reading and writing, interest in books, and numerical skills, were confirmed by the scores on the test of receptive language, which was administered directly to the children. A plausible explanation for the preponderance of low language and vocabulary scores is the large percentage of new immigrants, usually not from English or French language backgrounds, to the community. However, the high prevalence of children with very low scores - nearly triple the national average — is by far the biggest area of concern, regardless of whether or not the children are new to the community and country. In contrast, an encouraging result is that the children sampled in this study scored well above the national norms on the Developmental Assessment (Who Am I?). This test is administered directly to the child using standardized methods, and can be compared with scores of other children in the country.

The parents' ratings of children's behaviour indicated that the prevalence of these problems is comparable to national norms. The exception is hyperactivity, which was significantly higher in this community. Some of these results are likely attributable to family backgrounds and to various family and community factors. This hypothesis is explored in the next two sections.


5 Statistics Canada trained personnel conducted the parent interviews by telephone only in English or French for the NLSCY. Parents without telephones or speaking other languages were not interviewed.

6 The EDI sample size, N=289, included valid data only. To be included in the EDI sample for Dixie Bloor, children needed scores on at least 3 out of the 5 EDI domains. This explains why the EDI sample size (N=289) is different from the NLSCY sample size (N=323) for Dixie Bloor.

7 The longer the boxes, the greater range of variability in the EDI domain scores. For example, the physical health and well-being domain has short boxes which indicate that scores were very similar to one another. In contrast, the language and cognitive development domain has long boxes which indicate that scores varied considerably, ranging from very low to very high scores.

PreviousContentsNext
     
   
Last modified :  2005-10-24 top Important Notices