↓ Skip to main content

The Early Development Instrument: an evaluation of its five domains using Rasch analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Early Development Instrument: an evaluation of its five domains using Rasch analysis
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12887-016-0543-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret Curtin, John Browne, Anthony Staines, Ivan J. Perry

Abstract

Early childhood development is a multifaceted construct encompassing physical, social, emotional and intellectual competencies. The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a population-level measure of five domains of early childhood development on which extensive psychometric testing has been conducted using traditional methods. This study builds on previous psychometric analysis by providing the first large-scale Rasch analysis of the EDI. The aim of the study was to perform a definitive analysis of the psychometric properties of the EDI domains within the Rasch paradigm. Data from a large EDI study conducted in a major Irish urban centre were used for the analysis. The unidimensional Rasch model was used to examine whether the EDI scales met the measurement requirement of invariance, allowing responses to be summated across items. Differential item functioning for gender was also analysed. Data were available for 1344 children. All scales apart from the Physical Health and Well-Being scale reliably discriminated between children of different levels of ability. However, all the scales also had some misfitting items and problems with measuring higher levels of ability. Differential item functioning for gender was particularly evident in the emotional maturity scale with almost one-third of items (9 out of 30) on this scale biased in favour of girls. The study points to a number of areas where the EDI could be improved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 23%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Psychology 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,471,048
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,372
of 3,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,676
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.