创建和评估两种累积发展脆弱性风险措施。

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Population Data Science Pub Date : 2022-08-25 DOI:10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1813
E. Duku, Molly M. Pottruff, M. Janus
{"title":"创建和评估两种累积发展脆弱性风险措施。","authors":"E. Duku, Molly M. Pottruff, M. Janus","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesThe Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a valid and reliable population-level tool measuring child developmental vulnerability in Kindergarten. The objective of this study was to derive and validate new EDI-based development “cumulative vulnerability” risk indicators using a cumulative risk index approach (Rutter, 1979). \nApproachThe EDI has two main outcome measures: individual domain scores and vulnerability (scoring below a 10% cutpoint). To account for more complexity, we derived two new “cumulative vulnerability” measures. The Mean EDI Domain Score (MEDS) is the mean of the domain scores, and the Total EDI Vulnerability Index (TEVI) is an ordinal summative measure using domain vulnerability indicators. In Study I, we examined the relationship of the MEDS and TEVI measures with neighbourhood-level SES. In Study II, we examined the predictive/explanatory power of the MEDS and TEVI measures with Grade 3 provincial assessments in Ontario, Canada. \nResultsStudy I used EDI Kindergarten data from twelve provincial and territorial data collections between 2008 and 2013 in Canada (316,015 children) aggregated to 2,038 customized neighbourhoods. The two new cumulative vulnerability measures worked as expected, with positive association between MEDS and neighbourhood SES (r=0.58), and a negative association between TEVI and neighbourhood SES (r=-0.57). Study II used data from 61,039 Kindergarten children matched between the EDI and Grade 3 EQAO datasets. The predictive/explanatory power of Mean EDI Domain Scores (MEDS; R2=0.11 to 0.15) was twice that of new ordinal summative measure (TEVI; R2=0.06 to 0.08). Interestingly, the predictive power of the TEVI was similar to that of the composite EDI outcome measure, overall vulnerability (vulnerable on one or more domains). \nConclusionThe MEDS and TEVI work as expected and can be used for research and reporting purposes. More specifically, the TEVI can also be used as a severity metric evaluating the impact of multiple developmental vulnerabilities. It is recommended that further research be conducted to validate the measures with other datasets.","PeriodicalId":36483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creating and Evaluating Two Cumulative Developmental Vulnerability Risk Measures.\",\"authors\":\"E. Duku, Molly M. Pottruff, M. Janus\",\"doi\":\"10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesThe Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a valid and reliable population-level tool measuring child developmental vulnerability in Kindergarten. The objective of this study was to derive and validate new EDI-based development “cumulative vulnerability” risk indicators using a cumulative risk index approach (Rutter, 1979). \\nApproachThe EDI has two main outcome measures: individual domain scores and vulnerability (scoring below a 10% cutpoint). To account for more complexity, we derived two new “cumulative vulnerability” measures. The Mean EDI Domain Score (MEDS) is the mean of the domain scores, and the Total EDI Vulnerability Index (TEVI) is an ordinal summative measure using domain vulnerability indicators. In Study I, we examined the relationship of the MEDS and TEVI measures with neighbourhood-level SES. In Study II, we examined the predictive/explanatory power of the MEDS and TEVI measures with Grade 3 provincial assessments in Ontario, Canada. \\nResultsStudy I used EDI Kindergarten data from twelve provincial and territorial data collections between 2008 and 2013 in Canada (316,015 children) aggregated to 2,038 customized neighbourhoods. The two new cumulative vulnerability measures worked as expected, with positive association between MEDS and neighbourhood SES (r=0.58), and a negative association between TEVI and neighbourhood SES (r=-0.57). Study II used data from 61,039 Kindergarten children matched between the EDI and Grade 3 EQAO datasets. The predictive/explanatory power of Mean EDI Domain Scores (MEDS; R2=0.11 to 0.15) was twice that of new ordinal summative measure (TEVI; R2=0.06 to 0.08). Interestingly, the predictive power of the TEVI was similar to that of the composite EDI outcome measure, overall vulnerability (vulnerable on one or more domains). \\nConclusionThe MEDS and TEVI work as expected and can be used for research and reporting purposes. More specifically, the TEVI can also be used as a severity metric evaluating the impact of multiple developmental vulnerabilities. It is recommended that further research be conducted to validate the measures with other datasets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Population Data Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Population Data Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1813\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的早期发展工具(EDI)是衡量幼儿园儿童发展脆弱性的有效和可靠的人口水平工具。本研究的目的是使用累积风险指数方法推导和验证新的基于EDI的开发“累积脆弱性”风险指标(Rutter,1979)。方法EDI有两个主要的结果衡量标准:个人领域得分和脆弱性(得分低于10%的临界点)。为了说明更多的复杂性,我们推导了两个新的“累积脆弱性”度量。平均EDI领域得分(MEDS)是领域得分的平均值,总EDI脆弱性指数(TEVI)是使用领域脆弱性指标的顺序总结性度量。在研究I中,我们研究了MEDS和TEVI测量与社区水平SES的关系。在研究II中,我们在加拿大安大略省的三级省级评估中检验了MEDS和TEVI测量的预测/解释能力。结果研究I使用了2008年至2013年间加拿大12个省和地区的EDI幼儿园数据(316015名儿童),总计2038个定制社区。这两项新的累积脆弱性指标如预期一样有效,MEDS与邻里SES之间呈正相关(r=0.58),TEVI与邻里SESs之间负相关(r=-0.57)。研究II使用了61039名幼儿园儿童的数据,这些数据在EDI和3年级EQAO数据集之间匹配。平均EDI领域得分(MEDS;R2=0.11至0.15)的预测/解释能力是新的序数总和测量(TEVI;R2=0.06至0.08)的两倍。有趣的是,TEVI的预测能力与综合EDI结果测量的预测能力相似,即总体脆弱性(在一个或多个领域上易受攻击)。结论MEDS和TEVI符合预期,可用于研究和报告目的。更具体地说,TEVI也可以用作评估多种发展脆弱性影响的严重性指标。建议进行进一步研究,用其他数据集验证这些措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Creating and Evaluating Two Cumulative Developmental Vulnerability Risk Measures.
ObjectivesThe Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a valid and reliable population-level tool measuring child developmental vulnerability in Kindergarten. The objective of this study was to derive and validate new EDI-based development “cumulative vulnerability” risk indicators using a cumulative risk index approach (Rutter, 1979). ApproachThe EDI has two main outcome measures: individual domain scores and vulnerability (scoring below a 10% cutpoint). To account for more complexity, we derived two new “cumulative vulnerability” measures. The Mean EDI Domain Score (MEDS) is the mean of the domain scores, and the Total EDI Vulnerability Index (TEVI) is an ordinal summative measure using domain vulnerability indicators. In Study I, we examined the relationship of the MEDS and TEVI measures with neighbourhood-level SES. In Study II, we examined the predictive/explanatory power of the MEDS and TEVI measures with Grade 3 provincial assessments in Ontario, Canada. ResultsStudy I used EDI Kindergarten data from twelve provincial and territorial data collections between 2008 and 2013 in Canada (316,015 children) aggregated to 2,038 customized neighbourhoods. The two new cumulative vulnerability measures worked as expected, with positive association between MEDS and neighbourhood SES (r=0.58), and a negative association between TEVI and neighbourhood SES (r=-0.57). Study II used data from 61,039 Kindergarten children matched between the EDI and Grade 3 EQAO datasets. The predictive/explanatory power of Mean EDI Domain Scores (MEDS; R2=0.11 to 0.15) was twice that of new ordinal summative measure (TEVI; R2=0.06 to 0.08). Interestingly, the predictive power of the TEVI was similar to that of the composite EDI outcome measure, overall vulnerability (vulnerable on one or more domains). ConclusionThe MEDS and TEVI work as expected and can be used for research and reporting purposes. More specifically, the TEVI can also be used as a severity metric evaluating the impact of multiple developmental vulnerabilities. It is recommended that further research be conducted to validate the measures with other datasets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
386
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Defining a low-risk birth cohort: a cohort study comparing two perinatal data sets in Ontario, Canada. Data resource profile: nutrition data in the VA million veteran program. Deprivation effects on length of stay and death of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Greater Manchester. Variation in colorectal cancer treatment and outcomes in Scotland: real world evidence from national linked administrative health data. Examining the quality and population representativeness of linked survey and administrative data: guidance and illustration using linked 1958 National Child Development Study and Hospital Episode Statistics data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1