HELP has been collecting EDI data since 2001 and has collected data for over 245,000 kindergarten children in BC. This has created an important foundation for a population health monitoring system that supports an increased understanding of children’s early developmental outcomes over time and across geographies. In this report, we explore these patterns and trends in early child development outcomes in BC through the use of Early Development Instrument (EDI) data.
Please note: This online report is currently best viewed in Chrome, Firefox or Safari Browsers.
The EDI is a questionnaire used province-wide to measure patterns and trends in children’s developmental health. HELP has been collecting EDI data since 2001 and over the course of this period we have collected data for over 245,000 kindergarten children in BC. This has created an important foundation for a population health monitoring system that supports an increased understanding of children’s early developmental outcomes over time and across geographies.
The EDI was developed by Drs. Dan Offord and Magdalena Janus at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University (Janus et al, 2007) and has been used in provinces and territories across Canada, and internationally, to better understand the developmental trends of kindergarten children (Guhn et al, 2016; Janus et al, 2016). Increasingly, Canadian EDI data are providing a basis for assessing developmental differences and trends in different parts of the country (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2016).
The EDI was designed as an epidemiological tool to assess population trends and not as an individual diagnostic tool. The questionnaire includes 104 questions arranged in five scales that measure core areas of child development. These areas are strong predictors of health, education and social outcomes in adolescence and adulthood. Kindergarten teachers complete EDI questionnaires for students in their classroom in February of the school year once they have known their children for a while. Teachers participate in a standardized EDI training session prior to completing the questionnaire.
Assesses children’s gross and fine motor skills, physical independence and readiness for the school day. E.g. Can the child hold a pencil? Is the child able to manipulate objects? Is the child on time for school?
Assesses children’s overall social competencies, capacity for respect and responsibility, approaches to learning, and readiness to explore new things. E.g. Is the child able to follow class routines? Is the child self-confident? Is the child eager to read a new book?
Assesses children’s prosocial and helping behaviours, as well as hyperactivity and inattention, and aggressive, anxious and fearful behaviours. E.g. Does the child comfort a child who is crying or upset? Does the child help clean up a mess?
Assesses children’s basic and advanced literacy skills, numeracy skills, interest in math and reading, and memory. E.g. Is the child interested in reading and writing? Can the child count and recognize numbers? Is the child able to read simple sentences?
Assesses children’s English language skills and general knowledge. E.g. Can the child tell a story? Can the child communicate with adults and children? Can the child take part in imaginative play?
Data gathered from the EDI are used to report on childhood vulnerability rates. The data illustrate trends in vulnerability over time. Through data analysis and mapping, it also becomes possible to examine regional differences in child vulnerability at multiple geographical levels from a broad provincial snapshot, to community and neighbourhood analyses.
Vulnerable children are those who, without additional support and care, are more likely to experience challenges in their school years and beyond. Vulnerability is assessed for each of the five EDI scales. Children whose scores fall below the vulnerability cut-off on a particular EDI scale are said to be vulnerable in that area of development.
The proportion of children vulnerable on each of the five scales of the EDI, measured and reported as vulnerability rates.
Vulnerable on One or More Scales is a summary measure that reports the percentage of children who are vulnerable on at least one of the five scales of the EDI. Children represented by this measure may be vulnerable on only one scale or may be experiencing vulnerabilities on two, three, four or all five scales of the EDI.
This year’s report explores EDI subscales scores and how these contribute to scale-level vulnerability. See the ‘Subscales’ section for more information.
Please note that if you wish to refer to this content again as you explore the report, you can access it by clicking on the red icon on the bottom right of the browser window. A menu of buttons will open next to it containing a red edi button that will reveal this content. Within this menu you can also find links to our social media pages and a contact form.
The EDI measures childhood vulnerability rates, reflecting how children’s experiences and environments in the first five years of their lives have affected their development as a whole. Learn More about the EDI.
The EDI is a questionnaire used province-wide to measure patterns and trends in children’s developmental health. HELP has been collecting EDI data since 2001 and over the course of this period we have collected data for over 245,000 kindergarten children in BC. This has created an important foundation for a population health monitoring system that supports an increased understanding of children’s early developmental outcomes over time and across geographies.
The EDI was developed by Drs. Dan Offord and Magdalena Janus at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University (Janus et al, 2007) and has been used in provinces and territories across Canada, and internationally, to better understand the developmental trends of kindergarten children (Guhn et al, 2016; Janus et al, 2016). Increasingly, Canadian EDI data are providing a basis for assessing developmental differences and trends in different parts of the country (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2016).
The EDI was designed as an epidemiological tool to assess population trends and not as an individual diagnostic tool. The questionnaire includes 104 questions arranged in five scales that measure core areas of child development. These areas are strong predictors of health, education and social outcomes in adolescence and adulthood. Kindergarten teachers complete EDI questionnaires for students in their classroom in February of the school year once they have known their children for a while. Teachers participate in a standardized EDI training session prior to completing the questionnaire.
Assesses children’s gross and fine motor skills, physical independence and readiness for the school day. E.g. Can the child hold a pencil? Is the child able to manipulate objects? Is the child on time for school?
Assesses children’s overall social competencies, capacity for respect and responsibility, approaches to learning, and readiness to explore new things. E.g. Is the child able to follow class routines? Is the child self-confident? Is the child eager to read a new book?
Assesses children’s prosocial and helping behaviours, as well as hyperactivity and inattention, and aggressive, anxious and fearful behaviours. E.g. Does the child comfort a child who is crying or upset? Does the child help clean up a mess?
Assesses children’s basic and advanced literacy skills, numeracy skills, interest in math and reading, and memory. E.g. Is the child interested in reading and writing? Can the child count and recognize numbers? Is the child able to read simple sentences?
Assesses children’s English language skills and general knowledge. E.g. Can the child tell a story? Can the child communicate with adults and children? Can the child take part in imaginative play?
Data gathered from the EDI are used to report on childhood vulnerability rates. The data illustrate trends in vulnerability over time. Through data analysis and mapping, it also becomes possible to examine regional differences in child vulnerability at multiple geographical levels from a broad provincial snapshot, to community and neighbourhood analyses.
Vulnerable children are those who, without additional support and care, are more likely to experience challenges in their school years and beyond. Vulnerability is assessed for each of the five EDI scales. Children whose scores fall below the vulnerability cut-off on a particular EDI scale are said to be vulnerable in that area of development.
The proportion of children vulnerable on each of the five scales of the EDI, measured and reported as vulnerability rates.
Vulnerable on One or More Scales is a summary measure that reports the percentage of children who are vulnerable on at least one of the five scales of the EDI. Children represented by this measure may be vulnerable on only one scale or may be experiencing vulnerabilities on two, three, four or all five scales of the EDI.
This year’s report explores EDI subscales scores and how these contribute to scale-level vulnerability. See the ‘Subscales’ section for more information.
Please note that if you wish to refer to this content again as you explore the report, you can access it by clicking on the red icon on the bottom right of the browser window. A menu of buttons will open next to it containing a red edi button that will reveal this content. Within this menu you can also find links to our social media pages and a contact form.
Explore the most recent EDI vulnerability rates and long term trends for kindergarten children in the province.
1 in 3 children, or about 14,000 Kindergarten students in this province, are starting school with vulnerabilities in one or more areas that are critical to their healthy development. This level of vulnerability has significant social and economic cost, not simply as children start school but throughout their lives.
Further insights into child development emerge when examining vulnerability rates for each of the five EDI scales, especially longer-term trends, from Wave 2 to Wave 6. These data provide more insight into which areas of development, in particular, are of concern.
A meaningful change is one that HELP considers worthwhile paying attention to. According to HELP’s protocol for identifying ‘Meaningful Change’ across waves, the minimum difference required at a scale level for a change to be meaningful is 2 percentage points for larger populations of children (such as school districts, health authorities and the province as a whole). Therefore, for this provincial report, change over time in vulnerability for any of the scales must be 2% or higher to be considered meaningful.
The nature of childhood vulnerability in BC is changing and becoming increasingly complex. EDI data shows that a higher proportion of kindergarten children are facing vulnerabilities in multiple areas of their development.
The provincial vulnerability rate for Vulnerable on One or More Scales of the EDI provides a perspective on the overall vulnerability of children in BC. While many of the province’s vulnerable children experience challenges in a single area of development, some demonstrate multiple vulnerabilities, on two, three, four or all five scales of the EDI. Assessing the proportion of children experiencing multiple vulnerabilities, especially over time, provides an in-depth perspective on the scope of vulnerability in the province.
EDI data show that from Wave 2 to Wave 6, based on the proportion of children with at least one vulnerability, there has been a small and consistent increase in the number of children with multiple vulnerabilities, or experiencing vulnerability on multiple scales. The proportion of children experiencing 2 vulnerabilities went from 7% to almost 8%; children with 3 vulnerabilities went from 4.1% to 5.1%; and children with 4 or 5 vulnerabilities went from 5% to close to 6%. Combined, the proportion of children experiencing vulnerability on 2 or more scales increased from 16.1% to 18.7%. Based on our critical difference methodology, this increase of 2.6% represents a meaningful increase over time.
In addition to the increasing rates of vulnerability in the province, the complexity of vulnerability patterns is also increasing. It appears that children and families are experiencing more complex challenges and vulnerable children are experiencing increased struggles across several areas of their lives.
EDI subscale data provides increasingly specific information on children’s developmental health, strengthening our understanding of the influences contributing to childhood vulnerabilities.
This year HELP is expanding analysis of EDI data to examine 15 EDI subscales and their contributions to vulnerability rates on each of the EDI scales. By providing increasingly specific information on children’s developmental health, EDI subscale data can strengthen our understanding of the influences contributing to children’s developmental vulnerabilities. When used alongside additional forms of data and information, including the expertise of those working directly with children and families, subscale data are valuable. However, like the EDI scales, using EDI subscale data without contextual information may be ineffective or insufficient for developing initiatives or even targeted services. Subscales, just as with EDI scales, are interdependent.
Each of the EDI scales is made up of three or four subscales (except for Communication skills, which is both a scale and subscale). Subscale data can provide an in-depth look at more specific areas of child development. Find out more...
Each of the EDI scales is made up of three or four subscales (except for the Communication Skills scale, which is both a scale and subscale). Subscale data can provide an in-depth look at more specific areas of child development. See Figure 5 for a detailed overview of the relationship between EDI scales, subscales and items.
Individual subscales DO NOT measure vulnerability. Using Wave 2 as a benchmark, the subscale trend lines (calculated using standardized scores) show whether children are doing better or worse over time compared to children across the province for Wave 2. Subscale data provide insight into the specific areas of development, as well as how each subscale contributes to the overall pattern of vulnerability on each scale.
An upward subscale trend line suggests there is a negative influence on the overall scale, contributing to an increase in the vulnerability rate.
A downward subscale trend line suggests there is a positive influence on the overall scale, potentially contributing to a decrease in the vulnerability rate.
This adaptation has been applied so that subscale trends are in the same direction as trends in vulnerability for the scales.
Learn more by visiting HELP’s Critical Difference resource.
There is a significant disparity in vulnerability across neighbourhoods in our province.
EDI data reveal large disparities in vulnerability rates between health authorities, school districts and neighbourhoods. In BC, this is especially pronounced at the neighbourhood-level. EDI data show that while some neighbourhoods are doing very well and sustain low vulnerability rates over time, others have seen high and sustained rates. In Wave 6, the lowest rate of neighbourhood vulnerability was 9% and the highest rate was 60%. This difference in neighbourhood-level outcomes represents a range of 51%. Explore neighbourhood vulnerability rates across the province using our Interactive Map
This variation in vulnerability is largely associated with differences in socioeconomic resources and context factors (e.g., poverty, income, wealth, education, employment). However, it also appears to be related to inequities in other areas, for example, social capital or access to support systems (Sampson, Morenoff and Earls, 1999; Raudenbush and Earls, 1997). By conducting community-based research and by linking EDI trend data to other sources of information, such as the Canadian Census and income tax data, HELP is continuing to build our understanding of the ways in which social and economic factors contribute to observed differences in children’s developmental health.
From Wave 2 to 6 many of BC’s 298 neighbourhoods experienced meaningful changes in vulnerability. On four of the five EDI scales, a larger proportion of neighbourhoods experienced increases in vulnerability, with a smaller proportion seeing decreases.
For the Emotional Maturity scale, the majority of neighbourhoods experienced change, with 53% of neighbourhoods seeing an increase in vulnerability between Wave 2 and Wave 6. A significant number of neighbourhoods (44%) also saw an increase in Social Competence vulnerability from Wave 2 to Wave 6. For both of these scales, the percentage of neighbourhoods experiencing increasing vulnerability was significantly above the provincial rate for vulnerability on one or more scales, at 34%.
This variation in vulnerability rates demonstrates clear and avoidable inequality in children’s developmental outcomes depending on where they live in the province. These differences highlight the continued need for further investigation into their causes and to build on our knowledge to support collective action toward improving developmental outcomes for children.
This report summarizes provincial level EDI trends and insights. In particular it emphasizes that:
As reflected in the scales of the EDI, child development itself is multidimensional – including physical, social, emotional and cognitive domains – and these are interdependent. The world into which children are born and are being raised is also complex and a wide range of social and economic factors influence children’s development. HELP uses a Total Environment Assessment Model (TEAM) for Early Childhood Development (Siddiqi, Irwin and Hertzman, 2007) to assist in understanding the interplay of these factors (see Figure below). This model suggests that development in the early years is the result of complex interactions among multiple domains that affect a child’s development at the individual, familial, community, and larger societal levels. While there is a strong tendency to focus on creating programs to address home, community and service environments, these proximal factors are profoundly affected by distal influences such as provincial and federal social and economic policy factors. A multi-layered and multi-sectoral approach is necessary to improve child development across the province.
Child development is complex. Each child develops in their own way. Although there are important milestones of child development, the sequencing and timing of each child’s development is unique. And so, understanding and making a difference to childhood vulnerability is also complex.
While there is no singular cause of vulnerability and no easy solutions, there are approaches that can make a difference. Communities in some parts of BC have made a substantial difference in their vulnerability rate, bringing it below 10%, by using systematic approaches to serving the needs of children and their families. There have been sustained improvements in the area of language and cognitive development. More comprehensive early years solutions are also emerging through government investment and cross-ministry planning and policy. In the future, to be successful in reducing childhood vulnerability, it will be important to build early years strategies around the following principles:
Building universal platforms to support child development in the early years, while also ensuring that particular areas of vulnerability and needs are addressed through additional investment – a universally proportionate approach (HELP, 2015);
Developing systemic solutions that simultaneously address the many factors influencing child development. This will require creative solutions that go beyond our past approaches and that bring government, institutions and communities together; and
Engagement by government and institutions with families and communities to address cultural, social, economic and institutional barriers to access and to develop policies, programs and services that are culturally appropriate and accessible.
The EDI is a questionnaire used province-wide to measure patterns and trends in children’s developmental health. HELP has been collecting EDI data since 2001 and over the course of this period we have collected data for over 245,000 kindergarten children in BC. This has created an important foundation for a population health monitoring system that supports an increased understanding of children’s early developmental outcomes over time and across geographies.
The EDI was developed by Drs. Dan Offord and Magdalena Janus at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University (Janus et al, 2007) and has been used in provinces and territories across Canada, and internationally, to better understand the developmental trends of kindergarten children (Guhn et al, 2016; Janus et al, 2016). Increasingly, Canadian EDI data are providing a basis for assessing developmental differences and trends in different parts of the country (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2016).
The EDI was designed as an epidemiological tool to assess population trends and not as an individual diagnostic tool. The questionnaire includes 104 questions arranged in five scales that measure core areas of child development. These areas are strong predictors of health, education and social outcomes in adolescence and adulthood. Kindergarten teachers complete EDI questionnaires for students in their classroom in February of the school year once they have known their children for a while. Teachers participate in a standardized EDI training session prior to completing the questionnaire.
Assesses children’s gross and fine motor skills, physical independence and readiness for the school day. E.g. Can the child hold a pencil? Is the child able to manipulate objects? Is the child on time for school?
Assesses children’s overall social competencies, capacity for respect and responsibility, approaches to learning, and readiness to explore new things. E.g. Is the child able to follow class routines? Is the child self-confident? Is the child eager to read a new book?
Assesses children’s prosocial and helping behaviours, as well as hyperactivity and inattention, and aggressive, anxious and fearful behaviours. E.g. Does the child comfort a child who is crying or upset? Does the child help clean up a mess?
Assesses children’s basic and advanced literacy skills, numeracy skills, interest in math and reading, and memory. E.g. Is the child interested in reading and writing? Can the child count and recognize numbers? Is the child able to read simple sentences?
Assesses children’s English language skills and general knowledge. E.g. Can the child tell a story? Can the child communicate with adults and children? Can the child take part in imaginative play?
Data gathered from the EDI are used to report on childhood vulnerability rates. The data illustrate trends in vulnerability over time. Through data analysis and mapping, it also becomes possible to examine regional differences in child vulnerability at multiple geographical levels from a broad provincial snapshot, to community and neighbourhood analyses.
Vulnerable children are those who, without additional support and care, are more likely to experience challenges in their school years and beyond. Vulnerability is assessed for each of the five EDI scales. Children whose scores fall below the vulnerability cut-off on a particular EDI scale are said to be vulnerable in that area of development.
The proportion of children vulnerable on each of the five scales of the EDI, measured and reported as vulnerability rates.
Vulnerable on One or More Scales is a summary measure that reports the percentage of children who are vulnerable on at least one of the five scales of the EDI. Children represented by this measure may be vulnerable on only one scale or may be experiencing vulnerabilities on two, three, four or all five scales of the EDI.
This year’s report explores EDI subscales scores and how these contribute to scale-level vulnerability. See the ‘Subscales’ section for more information.
Social Competence
Children who are identified as vulnerable on the Social Competence scale are more likely to have problems getting along with other children on a regular basis and have difficulty following rules and class routines.
Social Competence
The vulnerability rate on the Social Competence scale increased significantly from Wave 2 (13.3%) to Wave 6 (15.7%). Wave 5 and 6 vulnerability rates were essentially the same.