Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

EYE data

No description
by

ELCC Branch

on 25 June 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of EYE data

1. Physical development - fine motor
2. Physical development - gross motor
3. Language & communication
4. Cognitive skills
5. Social skills & approaches to learning
6. Awareness of self & environment
1. Physical health & well being
2. Social competence
3. Emotional maturity
4. Language & cognitive development
5. Communication & general knowledge


Let's have a look at the data...

the EDI is a population-level, age / norm-referenced gauge of child development at Kindergarten entry
the EYE-TA is a systematic framework K / Gr. 1 teachers use to structure observations of skills across five domains associated with a child's readiness to learn to read.

The EYE & EDI differ in important ways...
EYE data
Measures five core areas of early child development known to be good predictors of adult health, education and social outcomes.
Although teachers complete an EDI for each student, results are NOT used to evaluate individual children. As a population-level research tool, EDI is used to measure developmental change or trends at varied geographies (i.e. provincial, regional and neighbourhood.
The EDI
The EYE-TA provides a systematic framework teachers can use to structure their observations and informal assessments. It assesses six domains of instructionally-relevant skills closely associated with a child's readiness to learn to read.
EYE-TA is used to:
identify children who are experiencing difficulty and who may be in need of close monitoring or further assessment;
provide a starting point for contact and discussions with a school-based multi-disciplinary team (i.e., classroom teacher, administration, and specialists such as educational psychologists or speech and language therapists);
help teachers / school teams discern the type and amount of support required in a ‘response-to-intervention’ (RTI) program; and
initiate communication / dialogue with parents
The EYE-TA
EDI domains
Can we use EYE in the same way we used the EDI?
EYE-TA domains
...the developmental readiness of groups of children vs. normative ranges & identifies vulnerability by broad domains (i.e. more holistic / comprehensive picture of development)
...whether children have the skills necessary to take advantage of learning opportunities & identifies skill domains where children may require additional support (i.e. more specific, highly-focused picture of skill development)
...assesses
...assesses
"No."
Can we use the EYE in a similar way to how we used the EDI?
"Yes."
We do NOT get the same things with the EDI and the EYE. They measure different things. However, each tool provides information that the other cannot provide, and both tools provide an ability to highlight geographies where disproportionate numbers of students are struggling:
International / National / Provincial comparisons:
Data aggregated by different provincial geographies (School divisions, RHAs, RICs, & city neighbourhoods):
A holistic, generalized population-level gauge of developmental readiness, based on domains known to be predictive of youth / adult health, education and social outcomes:
Data for teachers and school-based professional teams to enable customized, tiered responses to individual children, based on six early life skill domains predictive of children's readiness to learn to read:
Data can be used in conjunction with other socioeconomic data to identify geographies where disproportionate numbers of children are developmentally vulnerable (EDI) / struggling with the skills implicated in taking advantage of school opportunities / learning to read (EYE-TA):
EDI
EYE
Timely data showing the impact of school division / school team responses to children experiencing difficulty:

Longer-term data showing trends in childrens' developmental readiness at the population level:

The following analysis is based on
195 aggregation 'points' were we have both EDI & EYE estimates...last year we had just 38 aggregation points.

Descending from screened as low on at least one domain
(EDI; 2009-11 baseline)
Descending from i
screened other than green
RTI (EYE-TA; 2013-14)
1. Northern HSP (
49
%)
2. Prince Albert
3. Northwest
4. Regina
5. Northeast
6. West Central
7. Southeast
8. Saskatoon
9. Moose Jaw SC
10. Southwest (
22
%)


Northern HSP (
63
%) 1.
Northwest 2.
Prince Albert 3.
West Central 4.
Regina 5.
Southeast 6.
Northeast 7.
Southwest 8.
Saskatoon 9.
Moose Jaw SC (
32
%) 10.

EYE
EDI
How do the EYE-TA / EDI compare in terms of their correlation with our community risk indicators?
EDI (2009-11 baseline):
Composite Z score - .857**
Lone parents (2006/2011) - .787**
IHBQ (2007-11) - .749**
Social Assistance (2008) - .678**
No Diploma (2006/2011) - .518**
Major Repairs (2006/2011) - .486**
Spearman's r
** indicates a significant correlation (.01 / 99% level)
* indicates a significant correlation (.05 / 95%) level)
EYE-TA (2012-13):
Composite Z score - .693**
Lone parents (2006/2011) - .603**
Social Assistance (2008) - .557**
IHBQ (2007-11) - .555**
Major Repairs (2006/2011) - .427**
No Diploma (2006/2011) - .330*
EYE
EDI
How do the EDI & EYE-TA correlate with one another?
EDI
(2009-11)
EYE
(% not green)
EYE
(% yellow)
EYE
(% red)
Spearman's r
1.00
.600
.556
.600
**
**
** indicates a significant correlation (.01 / 99% level)
Some notes on Spearman's rank-order
correlation coefficient (r ):
Preliminary look at impact of intervention...
Although we still consider 2013-14 a phase-in year, roughly 85% of Kindergarten students were assessed. The first pie chart shows the results of all students screened, using initial screens for children screened twice. The second pie shows results for all students screened, but now using second screens for children screened twice....
All screens, first for students
screened 2x...
All screens, second for students
screened 2x...
Any
questions?
Perfectly negatively correlated
No
relationship
Perfectly
positively correlated
Interpreting Spearman's r ...
1 province
10 RIC areas
27 School Divisions
18 Public SD Catchment areas
12 RHA areas
50 Communities
77 neighbourhoods

Descending from screened as low on at least one domain
(EDI; 2009-11 baseline)
Descending from i
screened other than green
RTI (EYE-TA; 2013-14)
a) Keewatin Yatthe (
50%
)
b) Mamawetan CR
c) PA Parkland
d) Prairie North
e) RQHR
f) Kelsey Trail
g) Sunrise
h) Heartland
i) Saskatoon
j) Sun Country
k)Five Hills
l) Cypress (
22%
)

Keewatin Yatthe (
77%
) a)
Prairie North b)
PA Parkland c)
Mamawetan CR d)
Heartland e)
RQHR f)
Sunrise g)
Sun Country h)
Kelsey Trail i)
Cypress j)
Saskatoon k)
Five Hills (
31%
) l)

EYE
EDI
Descending from screened as low on at least one domain
(EDI; 2009-11 baseline)
Descending from i
screened other than green
RTI (EYE-TA; 2012-13)
a) Prince Albert (
41%
)
b) North Battleford
c) Regina
d) Estevan
e) Lloydminster
f) Saskatoon
g) Yorkton
h) Weyburn
i) Moose Jaw
j) Swift Current (
16%
)

North Battleford (
69%
) a)
Prince Albert b)
Lloydminster c)
Regina d)
Yorkton e)
Estevan f)
Weyburn g)
Swift Current h)
Saskatoon i)
Moose Jaw (
28%
) j)

EYE
EDI
s
Spearman's r
s
s
**
s
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Very Strong
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Very
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Very Strong
Very
Weak
Weak
s
we use a
non-parametric
measure of correlation (Spearman's r) because both the EDI and EYE are
not
normally distributed, and non-parametric measures are
more robust
in the face of outliers.
In simple terms,
Spearman's rho
reflects the extent to which the relationship between the two tools is
monotonic
(i.e. the extent to which one variable increases or decreases in tandem with the other). The results suggest a
strong, positive monotonic
function between the EDI and the EYE (i.e. as one increases / decreases, so does the other).
In nearly all cases, the observed dependence is considered
significant at the 99% level
. This means there is a
very low probability
that the
observed relationship is due to chance
.
In other words, there is almost certainly a
"real"
or
"true"
association between the two tools.



The EYE-TA RTI:
uses a 4 point scale score (0,1,2 and 3) assigned by teachers for 42 separate items (KSI calls them instructionally-relevant skills)
items correspond to 6 skill domains:
domain averages (6 average scores) are used as the basis for assigning developmental levels to each domain:
1) Awareness of self & environment (8 items)
2) Social skills & approaches to learning (8 items)
3) Cognitive skills (8 items)
4) Language & communication (8 items)
5) Physical development - Fine (5 items)
6) Physical development - Gross (5 items)
KSI's RTI algorithm calculates the likelihood children will be successful readers by Grade 3 based on domain scores / developmental levels and the child's age...
Level 1 (low) - scores between 0.00 - 0.99
Level 2 - scores between 1.00 - 1.99
Level 3 (high) - scores betwe 2.00 - 3.00
Green tier - Probability >.79 that child will be successful reader
Yellow tier - Probability of .51 to .79 that child will be successful reader
Red tier - Probability <.51 that child will be successful reader
The EDI:
uses a combination of binary (0 or 10) and 3-point (0,5 or 10) scale scores for 104 core items which correspond to 5 developmental domains, organized according to 16 sub-domains, including a Special Needs component:
1) Physical health & well-being
2) Social Competence
3) Emotional maturity
4) Language & cognitive development
5) Communication & general knowledge
Physical readiness for school day
Physical independence
Gross & fine motor skills
Overall social competence
Responsibility & respect
Approaches to learning
Readiness to explore new things
Prosocial & helping behaviours
Anxious & fearful behaviours
Agressive behaviours
Hyperactivity & inattention
Basic literacy
Interest in literacy / numeracy & memory
Advanced literacy
Basic numeracy
Communication & general knowledge
Average domain / sub-domain scores are used to group children together based on the number of sub-domains / domains where the child's score falls in the bottom 10th percentile of a given distribution
Low on at least one domain
Low on at least two domains
Multiple challenges
Typically, reported estimates of readiness are in relation to sub-domain cut-offs developed from a national data set (i.e. normative distribution).
The current normative dataset is known as the Normative II, and includes roughly 175,000 valid EDIs collected between 2005-07.
Children identified as Special Needs are excluded from these esimates, and a number of other criteria exist as to when a teacher should or should not complete an EDI
Average = 31.6% low on
at least one domain
Average = 44.4% score not
green at school entry
Looking at EDI baseline (2009-11)
& EYE-TA K entry results (2013-14):
RIC areas
Average = 32.8% low on
at least one domain
Average = 45.5% score
not green at school entry
Average = 28.3% low on at
least one domain
Average = 46.2% score not
green at school entry
Correlations between the two tools
are strong...sometimes very strong
58%
27%
15%
82%
13%
5%
Full transcript