Understanding the Early Years - Early Childhood Development in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan - April 2002

III. The Outcomes for Children of Prince Albert

Previous

Contents

Next

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 NLSCY Community Study and the EDI.

Five Domains for EDI (teacher report):

Physical health and well-being: children's motor skills, energy levels, fatigue and motor co-ordination.

Social competence: self-confidence, tolerance, and children's ability to get along with other children, to accept responsibility for their own actions, and to work independently.

Emotional health and maturity: children's general emotional health and maturity. It also identifies minor problems with aggression, restlessness, distractibility, or in-attentiveness, as well as excessive and regular sadness.

Language and cognitive development: mastery of the basics of reading and writing, interest in books, and numerical skills (e.g., recognizing numbers and counting).

Communication skills and general knowledge: children's general knowledge, their ability to articulate clearly, and their ability to understand and communicate in English.

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.

Inset 2 - 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 coordinated?
• 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 to communicate, 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.

Developmental Level (Who Am I?) is based on copying and writing tasks, which are designed to test their 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 and a diamond) and to write their names, numbers, letters, words, and a sentence. Who Am I? can be used to assess the cognitive development of children; because the tasks are not dependent on language, English or French, regardless of their facility with it.

Number knowledge (Number Knowledge Assessment) is designed to assess 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):

Identifying a child's behaviour is based on assessments by the person most knowledgeable about the child, usually the mother.⁹ The measurements comprise several questions, each with the same format. 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 assessment 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 also might invite their peers to join in a game.

The positive social behavior outcome was not correlated to the four problem behaviour outcomes — indirect aggression, hyperactivity, emotional disorder/anxiety, and physical aggression and conduct disorder. This indicates the likelihood that parents reported positive behaviour as well as one or more of the problem behaviours when answering the NLSCY Community Survey.

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; 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 & 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, hit other children; physically attack people; and who threaten people, are cruel, or bully others.

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

The children of Prince Albert scored well overall on the five EDI domains, for example, 8.5 for physical health and well-being, 8.1 for social knowledge and competence, and 7.8 for communication skills and general knowledge (see Table 2-1).¹⁰ Prince Albert children scored 0.6 points above the EDI-16 for social knowledge and competence and 0.6 above for communication skills and general knowledge. They scored slightly below the EDI-16 on emotional health and maturity (-0.2), and physical health and well-being (-0.1). Prince Albert children scored 0.6 below the EDI-16 on language and cognitive development.

Figure 2-1 shows that the median scores for the EDI domains in Prince Albert are either above or slightly below those in the EDI-16 sample. The range of scores are indicated by the length of the boxes.¹¹ The inter-quartile range of children in Prince Albert is similar to that of the EDI-16 sample. Social Knowledge and Competence and Language and Cognitive Development, were the exception with more variable scores for both.

Inset 3 shows the median and percentiles for the distribution of EDI scores for each group. The median represents the point at which 50% of the cases fall below and 50% of the cases fall above the median. Percentiles refer to the percentage of cases with values falling above and below them.

Table 2.1 — Mean Scores on the Early Development Instrument for the Prince Albert Community and the Comparison Sample (EDI-16)

	Prince Albert EY Community =339)		EDI—16 > 28,250)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Physical Health and Well-being	8.5	1.3	8.6	1.1
Social Knowledge and Competence	8.1	1.9	7.5	1.5
Emotional Health and Maturity	7.7	1.6	7.9	1.5
Language and Cognitive Development	7.5	2.3	8.1	1.9
Communication Skills and General Knowledge	7.8	2.0	7.2	2.1
Note: Figures in blue text differ significantly (p < .10) from the EDI-16.

p>Figure 2.1 - Box plots comparing the distribution of EDI scores for Prince Albert with the EDI-16

Inset 3 - Percentile Plots
e Percentile plots display the distribution of the EDI scores for each group as follows:

Data from the EDI-16 were 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 in the sample scored below the threshold for each domain. Thus, if a community had typical results, we would expect 10% of its children to have scores below the same threshold on each domain. Typically, communities have the highest scores in the Physical Health and Well-being domain. This finding may not be surprising, given universal access to health care for Canadians.

In Prince Albert, however, the percentage of children with low scores ranged from 7.5% to 17.9% across the five domains. The areas of greatest concern were Language and Cognitive Development (17.9%) and Physical Health and Well-being (16.3%).

Figure 2.2 - Percentage of children with low scores on the Early Development Instrument (Prince Albert).

Note: Significant differences (p<.05) are indicated with red text

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, the average score within each enumeration area was determined, for each domain of the EDI. The average scores for each enumeration area was then "smoothed".

Figures 2.3 through 2.7 display the geographic distribution of the EDI scores for each of the domains. The distributions vary by domain, the higher scores are indicated by the blue, green, and dark green (very high). Higher middle-range scores are indicated by beige; the lower mid-range scores are indicated by yellow and pink; and the low to very low scores are indicated by the orange, red, and brown (very low).

It is important to recognize that while some areas have generally high scores, there will always be some children needing extra support in any given neighbourhood.

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 immediately surround it (the technical term is "geographically contiguous"). Smoothing the spatial data in this way provides a more accurate display of what we would expect if all kindergarten children in the community had participated in the EDI. It also ensures that the confidentiality of individuals, or small groups of individuals, is not compromised.

Physical Health and Well-being

Urban

Figure 2.3 (a) shows a fairly even distribution of mid- to high scores in the central section (East Hill, Crescent Heights, Carlton Park, and Crescent Acres) of the urban area of Prince Albert for physical health and well-being (shown in blue and beige). The map indicates several EAs in the west-central section (West Hill) of the urban area with very high scores (shown in light green and dark green). It also shows several EAs with slightly lower scores in the south-central and north-east sections (Midtown and East End) (shown in yellow and pink). Overall, children are doing well concerning physical health and well-being in the urban area for Prince Albert.

Rural

Figure 2.3 (b) shows a fairly even distribution of high scores for the rural area of Prince Albert concerning physical health and well-being. Most of the EAs throughout the rural area of Prince Albert range from high to very high scores (shown in blue, light green and dark green). There several south-central and south-east EAs in rural Prince Albert with low (orange) and very low scores (shown in brown) on physical health and well-being. Overall, the maps clearly indicate that the rural area scores consistently higher than the urban area in Prince Albert concerning the physical health and well-being domain.

Overall, the maps indicate that the rural area scores consistently higher than the urban area in Prince Albert concerning the physical health and well-being domain.

Language and Cognitive Development

Urban

Figure 2.4 (a) shows a fairly even distribution of lower mid-range scores for the urban area of Prince Albert concerning language and cognitive development (shown in pink and yellow). The north-west section of the urban area (West Flat, Parkland, Hazeldell, Midtown), and portions of the south west region of Prince Albert (West Hill) depict low to very low scores for this domain (shown in orange, red and brown). There are several EAs in the south east section of the urban area (Crescent Acres and Carlton Park and Crescent Heights) with higher mid-range scores (shown in beige), as well as several EAs with high scores in the west-central section of Prince Albert's urban area (shown in beige and blue).

Rural

Figure 2.4 (b) shows a pattern of lower midrange scores for the rural area of Prince Albert concerning language and cognitive development (shown in pink and yellow). The south-east portion shows several EAs with very high scores for language and cognitive development (shown in dark green). The south-central, east-central, and north-east sections of the rural area all have several EAs in the low to very low scores for this domain (shown in orange, red and brown).

Overall, the rural map indicates a similar pattern of lower mid-range results, compared to the urban map concerning the language and cognitive development domain. The exception being that there are a number of contiguous EAs in the central-east area of the rural map that have mid-range scores (beige) and several EAs in the south portion of the rural map with very high scores (dark green).

Communications Skills and General Knowledge

Urban

Figure 2.5 (a) shows an even distribution of lower mid-range (yellow) and mid-range (beige) scores throughout the urban area of Prince Albert for communication skills and general knowledge. This tells us that the high scores shown in Table 2.1 are not the result of concentrated high scores in a few EAs. It is noteworthy that the north-west, north-east and north central sections of the urban area (Midtown and West Flat) contains several EAs with lower mid-range (pink) to low scores (shown in red and orange) for communication skills and general knowledge. There are two EAs in the north-west section with high (light green) and very high (dark green) scores.

Rural

Figure 2.5 (b) shows a higher range of scores throughout the rural area of Prince Albert for communication skills and general knowledge. While the east-central and south-east sections of the rural area score high (shown in light green and blue) to very high (dark green), there are several EAs throughout these areas with very low scores (shown in brown and red). The west-central section of the rural area (EAs near Kinistino and Christopher Lake) for Prince Albert have lower-mid (near Kinistino Lake shown in pink and yellow) to mid (beige), and high range scores (blue). Overall, there is no consistent pattern of scores for the rural area.

Overall, the maps indicate that the scores for the rural area are higher than the urban area in Prince Albert concerning communication skills and general knowledge. However, there is not a consistent pattern to the scores for the rural area.

Emotional Health and Maturity

Urban

Figure 2.6 (a) shows a consistent pattern of mid to lower- mid range scores (shown in pink, yellow and beige) throughout the urban area of Prince Albert for emotional health and maturity. The north-central and east-central sections of the urban area (Crescent Heights and Crescent Acres, Carlton Park, Midtown, East End, East Hill and a portion of the West Hill) have mid-range scores (beige). There are several EAs in the west-central and north-west sections with high scores (light green) and low scores (orange) for emotional health and maturity.

Rural

Figure 2.6 (b) shows a fairly consistent pattern of lower to mid- (shown in yellow and beige) to high range scores (shown in blue) throughout the rural area of Prince Albert for emotional health and maturity. There are several EAs in the central south and central north areas (near Meath Park, Christopher Lake, Birch Hills, and Kinistino) with low (orange) to very low (shown in brown) scores. Some EAs are in the high range (blue), large number in the mid-range (shown in beige), and a very significant number in the low range (shown in orange and brown).

Overall, the urban and rural maps indicate a diverse range of scores: a number of EAs in the higher range, a large number in the midrange, and a significant number in the lower range.

Social Knowledge and Competence

Urban

Figure 2.7 (a) shows a consistent pattern of higher scores throughout the central section of the urban area of Prince Albert for social knowledge and competence. There are a number of contiguous EAs with very high scores in the east- and west-central sections of the urban area central (Carlton Park, Crescent Heights and Crescent Acres and East and West Hill). Moreover, there are lower midrange scores in the northern urban EAs for Prince Albert.

Rural

Figure 2.7 (b) shows a higher range of scores through the central and southern sections of Prince Albert for the rural area. The scores range from high to very high. There are several EAs in the north central and east central rural area with low to very low scores.

Overall, Figures 2.7 (a) and (b) the maps show that the rural areas score higher than the urban area for social knowledge and competence. It is important to note, however, that there is wider diversity in the range of scores for both the urban and rural maps for social knowledge and competence. Some children score in the higher ranges, but there are areas with lower mid-range and low scores for this developmental domain.

Overall, the children of Prince Albert score relatively well in comparison to the larger EDI-16 sample. The EDI maps indicate that overall the scores are higher in the rural compared to the urban areas of Prince Albert. The urban and rural maps depicting the EDI scores for the children in Prince Albert reveal that there is variability within and across the five EDI developmental domains. Some EAs score in the high to very high range whereas many score at the lower end of the continuum. Overall, the children in the Prince Albert study area score near the average of the first five UEY communities, not because their population is homogeneous, but rather because it is diverse.

We might expect children in areas of higher concentrations of population (urban areas) to interact more frequently with other children and with adults, to have access to more resources and facilities, and to have better outcomes in the measures of development. This is not the case in Prince Albert. Some of the children in the rural area consistently score higher than the children in more populated areas in terms of all outcomes measured.

The maps also indicate that socio-economic background is not a definitive predictor of EDI outcomes, and that other factors that influence children's development should be considered. It is likely that these outcomes can be more fully explained if additional family and community factors are taken into consideration.

Figure 2.3a (Urban) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Physical Health and Well-Being

s

Figure 2.3b (Rural) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Physical Health and Well-being

Figure 2.4a (Urban) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Language and Cognitive Development

Figure 2.4b (Rural) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Language and Cognitive Development

Figure 2.5a (Urban) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Communications Skills and General Knowledge

Figure 2.5b (Rural) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Communication Skills and General Knowledge

Figure 2.6a (Urban) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Emotional Health and Maturity

Figure 2.6b (Rural) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Emotional Health and Safety

Figure 2.7a (Urban) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Social Knowledge and Competence

Figure 2.7b (Rural) - The Geographic Distribution of EDI Scores for Social Knowledge and Competence

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 from the NLSCY for Prince Albert.

Children in Prince Albert scored just above the national mean for positive behaviour (100.3) and the standard deviation was .9 points below the national standard deviation indicating less variability. The scores on two of three measures for Prince Albert are below 100, indicating that the children achieved scores below the national mean (see Inset 5). For example, based on the Who Am I?, children in Prince Albert scored 4.1 points below the national mean on cognitive development; and based on the PPVT-R, 2.5 points below the national mean on receptive vocabulary. Figure 2.8 displays the distribution of scores.

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 Development Assessment (Who Am I?) or the Positive Behaviour Scale, but to maintain some degree of comparability, the scores were scaled to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 for the entire sample of children who participated in the first five studies of the UEY project (see Table 2-2).

Figure 2-9 shows the distribution 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).

For each measure, the score at the10^th percentile of the national NLSCY was used as the threshold to define a low score. The percentage of children in the community scoring below the threshold provides a means of comparing against the 10% scoring below the threshold nationally.

Table 2.2 — Mean Scores on Standardized Instruments from the NLSCY for Prince Albert UEY Community

	Mean	Standard Deviation
Who Am I? (N=420)	95.9	15.1
Positive Behaviour (N=414)	100.3	14.1
Receptive Vocabulary (PPVT-R) (N=427)	97.5	15.4
Source: NLSCY (cycle 3) data, 1999-2000.
Note: Figures in blue are significantly different from the national standardized mean of 100.

In Prince Albert, the percentage of children with cognitive difficulties, based on the Who Am I? and the Receptive Language Test were 23.1% and 21.1% respectively, which is considerably higher than the 10% threshold. There were also more children in this community with behaviour problems: while 8.6% had low scores on the Positive Behaviour Scale, between 13.1% and 19.0% had low scores on the problem behaviour measures, all above the 10% threshold. Overall, while the children in this community, on average, fare well compared with children of the same age living elsewhere in Canada for EDI outcomes, more children in Prince Albert are grouped in the lower range of scores for the NLSCY measures.

Figure 2.8 - Box plots comparing the distribution of scores on the Who am I?, positive behaviour, and the PPVT-R.

Source: NLSCY data (cycle 3), 1999-2000
ote: See Inset 3

Figure 2.9 - Percentage of Children with Low Scores on the Cognitive and Behavioural Measures (Prince Albert)

Source: NLSCY data (cycle 3), 1999-2000
te: Children were directly assessed for the Who Am I? And Receptive Language (PPVT-R)

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:

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

For all of the children who did the assessment, across the five UEY sites, only 1.2% had failed to reach level 1. A minimal number of children were below Level 1, about a third (29.4%) were at Level 1, and two-thirds (67.2%) were at Level 2. Only 2.2% 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 Prince Albert, 60.8% of the children sampled had made the transition to at least level 2, which is considerably lower than the UEY average of 69.4%.

Overall, these findings also indicate that the children of this community scored at or below the mean compared to the children in the national sample. The scores on the test of Receptive Language Test are especially telling, because they are based on a test administered to children using a standard method and can be compared with scores of other children in the country. The median score on this test was about 3 points below the national median, and there was a much greater range of scores below the median than in the national sample. The results of the Who Am I? also indicate that the children in this community, on average, scored lower than children in the other UEY communities. The higher percentage of children scoring below the national 10% score, are of concern.

• ⁹Statistics 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.
• ¹⁰The EDI sample size, N=339, included valid data only. To be included in the EDI sample size for Prince Albert, children needed scores on at least 3 out of the 5 EDI domains. This explains why the EDI sample size (N:339) is different from the NLSCY sample size (N:433) for Prince Albert.
• ¹¹The longer the boxes, the greater range of variability in the EDI domain scores. For example, the physical health and well-being domain has a short box which indicates that scores are similar to one another. In contrast, the language and cognitive development domain for this community has a longer box, which indicates that scores varied more from one another.

Previous

Contents

Next