The Early Development Instrument as an Evaluation and Improvement Tool for School-Based, Integrated Services for Young Children and Parents: The Toronto First Duty Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Findings: Integrated services for young children and families are part of the new policy landscape in early childhood, but there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of these programs and how they develop on the ground. This study examined the use of the Early Development Instrument (EDI) as both a summative program evaluation tool and as a formative program improvement tool supporting practitioners in Toronto First Duty, an integrated services demonstration project that combined kindergarten, child care, and parenting supports in public schools. Pre-post comparisons at community demonstration sites and comparisons with matched community sites using the EDI suggested that the demonstration program was associated with modest improvements in emotional and social domains of children's development. Mixed methods and multiple measures were used to contextualize summative findings in case studies across demonstration sites. The case studies explored how integration was implemented at different sites and how dimensions of enacted integration might contribute to positive outcomes for children and families. A case study of one site showed how an integrated staff team used EDI school-level profiles, along with formative feedback on program quality, to target and improve programming. Over the course of implementation, the integrated program environment quality ratings and EDI scores improved in relevant areas assessing quality of interaction and social–emotional development. Practice or Policy: Findings are discussed in terms of the role of the EDI in program evaluation and in improvement of practice. The potential value of integrated early childhood services and the challenges of evaluating complex community initiatives are also discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".