Skip to main content
Log in

The Development and Validation of Australian Indices of Child Development—Part I: Conceptualisation and Development

  • Published:
Child Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) is a major national study examining the lives of Australian children, using a cross-sequential cohort design and data from parents, children, and teachers for 5,107 infants (3–19 months) and 4,983 children (4–5 years). Its data are publicly accessible and are used by researchers from many disciplinary backgrounds. It contains multiple measures of children’s developmental outcomes as well as a broad range of information on the contexts of their lives. This paper reports on the development of summary outcome indices of child development using the LSAC data. The indices were developed to fill the need for indicators suitable for use by diverse data users in order to guide government policy and interventions which support young children’s optimal development. The concepts underpinning the indices and the methods of their development are presented. Two outcome indices (infant and child) were developed, each consisting of three domains—health and physical development, social and emotional functioning, and learning competency. A total of 16 measures are used to make up these three domains in the Outcome Index for the Child Cohort and six measures for the Infant Cohort. These measures are described and evidence supporting the structure of the domains and their underlying latent constructs is provided for both cohorts. The factorial structure of the Outcome Index is adequate for both cohorts, but was stronger for the child than infant cohort. It is concluded that the LSAC Outcome Index is a parsimonious measure representing the major components of development which is suitable for non-specialist data users. A companion paper (Sanson et al. 2010) presents evidence of the validity of the Index.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Council for Educational Research. (2000). PPVT-III-LSAC Australian short-form developed by S Rothman. Melbourne: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth (2008). Report card: The wellbeing of young Australians. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.aracy.org.au/AM/Common/pdf/report_card/report_card_A5_web.pdf.

  • Ben-Arieh, A., & Goerge, R. (2001). Beyond the numbers: how do we monitor the state of our children? Children and Youth Services Review, 23(8), 603–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethell, C. D., Read, D., Stein, R. E. K., Blumberg, S. J., Wells, N., & Newacheck, P. W. (2002). Identifying children with special health care needs: development and evaluation of a Short Screening Instrument. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 2(1), 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 80, 133–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brink, S. (2003, October 2003). Research potential of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Paper presented at the The Epidemiology of Children’s Health conference, Kingston, Ontario.

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B., & Corbett, T. (2003). Social indicators as tools of public policy. In R. Weissberg, H. Walberg, M. U. O’Brien, & C. B. Kuster (Eds.), Long-term trends in the well-being of children and families (pp. 27–49). Washington: Child Welfare League of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument from three perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. C. (1978). Revision of the Infant Temperament Questionnaire. Pediatrics, 61(5), 735–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). BMI for children and teens. http://www.cdc.gov.nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/bmi-adult.htm. Accessed 25 October, 2006.

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), VII–XVI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, A., & Bray, R. (2007). A rights-based approach to monitoring the well-being of child in South Africa. In A. Dawes, R. Bray, & A. van der Merwe (Eds.), Monitoring child well-being: A South African rights-based approach (pp. 29–52). Cape Town: HSRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lemos, M., & Doig, B. (1999). Who am I: Mental measurements yearbook (vol. 15). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. (1997). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Form IIA, English edition (3rd ed.). Circle Pines: American Guidance Service Inc Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, M., & Sanson, A. (2005). Growing up in Australia: the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Family Matters, 72, 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(8), 644–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., Meadows, S. O., & Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in child well-being: an evidence-based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80, 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain, M. N., Mustard, J. F., & Shanker, S. (2007). Early years study 2: Putting science into action. Toronto: Council for Early Child Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCathren, R. B., Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (2000). Testing predictive validity of the communication composite of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(1), 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najman, J. M., Aird, R., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G. M., & Shuttlewood, G. J. (2004). The generational transmission of socioeconomic inequalities in child cognitive development and emotional health. Social Science and Medicine, 58(6), 1147–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C., & Spies, R. A. (2003). The fifteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Pathways from infancy to adolescence: Australian Temperament Project 1983–2000. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanson, A., Nicholson, J., Ungerer, J., Zubrick, S., Wilson, K., & the LSAC Consortium Advisory Group (2002). LSAC Discussion Paper No. 1: Introducing the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

  • Sanson, A., Misson, S., & the LSAC Outcome Index Working Group (2005). LSAC Technical Paper No. 2: Summarising children’s wellbeing: the LSAC Outcome Index. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

  • Sanson, A., Prior, M., Garino, E., & Oberklaid, F. (1987). The structure of infant temperament: factor analysis of the Revised Infant Temperament Questionnaire. Infant Behavior & Development, 10(1), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanson, A., Hawkins, M. T., Misson, S., & the LSAC Research Consortium. (2010). The development and validation of Australian indices of child development - Part II: validity support. Child Indicators Research, doi:10.1007/s12187-009-9049-3.

  • Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloff, C., Lawrence, D., & Johnstone, R. (2005). LSAC Technical Paper No. 1: Sample design. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

  • Soloff, C., Millward, C., Sanson, A., & the LSAC Consortium Advisory Group and Sampling Design Team. (2003). Proposed study design and wave 1 data collection. Melbourne: AIFS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloff, C., Misson, S., Lawrence, D., Johnstone, R., & Slater, J. (2006). LSAC Technical Paper No. 3: Wave 1 weighting and non-response. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

  • Statistics Canada. (2000). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) cycle 3 survey instruments: Parent questionnaire. Ottowa: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Rode, C. A. (1999). The PedsQL: measurement model for the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory. Medical Care, 37(2), 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, J. E. J., Nelson, E. C., Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1992). Preliminary tests of a 6-item General Health Survey: A patient application. In A. L. Stewart & J. E. Ware (Eds.), Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach (pp. 291–308). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherby, A. M., & Prizant, M. (2001). Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales—infant/toddler checklist. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

  • Willms, J. D. (2002). Vulnerable children. Alberta: University of Alberta Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper uses confidentialised unit record files from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). The study was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and is managed in partnership with the Australian Institute of Family Studies. A consortium of leading researchers and experts from universities and research agencies provides advice on design and methodological issues. The members of the Research Consortium apart from the listed authors are Professor Stephen Zubrick, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research; Dr John Ainley, Australian Council for Educational Research; Dr Michael Bittman, University of New England; Professor Bruce Bradbury, University of New South Wales; Dr Linda Harrison, Charles Sturt University; Associate Professor Jan Nicholson, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute; Professor Bryan Rogers, Australian National University; Professor Michael Sawyer, University of Adelaide; Professor Sven Silburn, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research; Dr Lyndall Strazdins, Australian National University; Professor Graham Vimpani, University of Newcastle; and Professor Melissa Wake, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute. Associate Professor Judy Ungerer, Macquarie University, was a member until 2007.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Sheldon Rothman, Australian Council for Educational Research to developing the modified version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and towards the construction of the outcome indices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann V. Sanson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanson, A.V., Misson, S., Hawkins, M.T. et al. The Development and Validation of Australian Indices of Child Development—Part I: Conceptualisation and Development. Child Ind Res 3, 275–292 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-009-9058-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-009-9058-2

Keywords

Navigation