Predicting Early School Achievement With the EDI: A Longitudinal Population-Based Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School readiness tests are significant predictors of early school achievement. Measuring school readiness on a large scale would be necessary for the implementation of intervention programs at the community level. However, assessment of school readiness is costly and time consuming. This study assesses the predictive value of a school readiness measure, the Early Development Instrument (EDI), which relies on kindergarten teachers' ratings of children's well-being and social, emotional, and cognitive development. We also compared the predictive value of the EDI with that of a direct school readiness test and a battery of cognitive tests. Data were collected when the children were in kindergarten and a year later, as part of Quebec's Longitudinal Study of Child Development. We found that that the EDI alone explained 36% of the variance in school achievement. The complete battery of measures explained 50% of the variance in early school achievement. Two of the EDI domains (Physical Health and Well-Being and Language and Cognitive Development) contributed uniquely to the prediction of school achievement over and above the cognitive assessments and direct school readiness test. The social and emotional domains of the EDI were at best marginal predictors of school achievement. In spite of this limitation, we conclude that the EDI predicts early school achievement as accurately as measures that take more time and resources to administer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it