View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Measuring the Foundations of School Readiness: Introducing a New Questionnaire for Teachers--The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Measuring the Foundations of School Readiness: Introducing a New Questionnaire for Teachers--The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI)
Language: English
Authors: Hughes, Claire, Daly, Irenee, Foley, Sarah, White, Naomi, Devine, Rory T.
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. Sep 2015 85(3):332-356.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Preschool Education
Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: School Readiness, Questionnaires, Preschool Children, Test Reliability, Preschool Teachers, Test Validity, Structural Equation Models, Gender Differences, Age Differences, Economically Disadvantaged, Daily Living Skills, Child Behavior, Adjustment (to Environment), Language Skills, Cognitive Processes, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12076
ISSN: 0007-0998
Abstract: Background: Early work on school readiness focused on academic skills. Recent research highlights the value of also including both children's social and behavioural competencies and family support. Aims: Reflecting this broader approach, this study aimed to develop a new and brief questionnaire for teachers: The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI). Sample: The main sample, recruited from the north-west of England, included 1,456 children (49% male), aged 2.5 to 5.5 years. A second sample consisting of 258 children (44% male) aged 3 to 5.5 years was recruited to assess the test-retest reliability of the BESSI across a 1-month interval. Methods: Following development and pilot work with early years teachers, a streamlined (30 items) version of the BESSI was sent to 98 teachers and nursery staff, who rated the children in their class. Results: The best-fitting model included four latent factors: Three child factors (Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, and Daily Living Skills) and one Family Support factor. The three child factors exhibited measurement invariance across gender. All four factors showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Structural equation modelling showed that (1) boys had more problems than girls on all three child factors; (2) older children showed better Language and Cognition and Daily Living Skills than younger children; and (3) children eligible for free school meals (an index of financial hardship) had more problems on all four latent factors. Family Support latent scores predicted all three child latent factors and accounted for their correlation with financial hardship. Conclusions: The BESSI is a promising brief teacher-report screening tool that appears suitable for children aged 2.5 to 5.5 and provides a broader perspective upon school readiness than previous measures.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1071450
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFu25-E8fFQAcT5YedN1ncCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEv3LNiihzOsTXtmfwIBEICBmmQE7yF9orpLI2C2cWDSBHxoHQXpq3MArYiVgh_8AkZoLVeUJ_nZkcieYo974dLmXyYYMrT8lt4gNTuPsnmhE28_aH1H-ZhSQ706yH04ZgXdg553cJRwK1B7-F2AranfiMl_2nyfD3f1tvMyWp8NHtID1Ayfv5CzBXqn7_0skqtH4CSyA_YOGj88AJD_NoJ6tzTJZVywrbfYvBU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0108813927;6kx01sep.15;2018Jun29.11:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0108813927-1">Measuring the foundations of school readiness: Introducing a new questionnaire for teachers - The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI). </title> <p>Background: Early work on school readiness focused on academic skills. Recent research highlights the value of also including both children's social and behavioural competencies and family support. Aims: Reflecting this broader approach, this study aimed to develop a new and brief questionnaire for teachers: The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI). Sample: The main sample, recruited from the north‐west of England, included 1,456 children (49% male), aged 2.5 to 5.5 years. A second sample consisting of 258 children (44% male) aged 3 to 5.5 years was recruited to assess the test–retest reliability of the BESSI across a 1‐month interval. Methods: Following development and pilot work with early years teachers, a streamlined (30 items) version of the BESSI was sent to 98 teachers and nursery staff, who rated the children in their class. Results: The best‐fitting model included four latent factors: Three child factors (Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, and Daily Living Skills) and one Family Support factor. The three child factors exhibited measurement invariance across gender. All four factors showed good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Structural equation modelling showed that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) boys had more problems than girls on all three child factors; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) older children showed better Language and Cognition and Daily Living Skills than younger children; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) children eligible for free school meals (an index of financial hardship) had more problems on all four latent factors. Family Support latent scores predicted all three child latent factors and accounted for their correlation with financial hardship. Conclusions: The BESSI is a promising brief teacher–report screening tool that appears suitable for children aged 2.5 to 5.5 and provides a broader perspective upon school readiness than previous measures.</p> <p>school readiness; family influence; socio‐economic status; gender; questionnaire</p> <p>What exactly is school readiness? Evidence that children's early adjustment and development predict important long‐term outcomes (e.g., Keating & Hertzmann, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>] ) has attracted great research interest, but a formal definition of school readiness has yet to be widely agreed. For politicians and many parents, school readiness hinges on achieving foundation skills in literacy and numeracy (Barbarin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>] ). Teachers, however, are more likely to highlight the importance of children's behaviour and socio‐emotional development (e.g., Lin, Lawrence, & Gorrell, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>] ). Encompassing each of these views therefore requires a multidimensional approach (e.g., Bierman et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>] ). Accompanying this definitional discourse is a shift in theoretical and practical perspectives. A key goal of early maturational views was to identify children who are unlikely to thrive in a mainstream educational setting; in contrast, more recent policies have emphasized the need to identify the kind of educational environment that can ensure universal success (e.g., The No Child Left Behind Act; U. S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref8">67</reflink>] ).</p> <p>We begin this introduction by arguing that adopting a broader definition of school readiness allows one to replace formal assessments with less time‐consuming survey‐based methods. We then introduce an existing and widely used questionnaire measure, the Early Development Instrument (EDI), before outlining three key limitations of this tool and providing a rationale for developing a new instrument. Finally, we identify family and child predictors that are likely to contribute to individual differences in children's ability to make a successful transition to school or nursery.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-2">The need for an instrument to gather teachers' ratings of school readiness</hd> <p>Broadening the definition of school readiness to encompass children's ability to meet everyday social and practical challenges (e.g., responding appropriately to peers and playing an active role in learning) raises important questions about measurement. The focus on specific cognitive skills (e.g., in literacy and numeracy) within the traditional maturational model led to the development of several psychometric tests that were well suited to identifying the small numbers of children with learning difficulties. However, individual testing is time‐consuming and so not appropriate for identifying the relatively large numbers of young children with mild delays who might benefit from more support within school. Moreover, the recognition of problems in regulating behaviour and emotion as key barriers to school readiness has led to a parallel broadening in assessment methods, as these problems are often best identified via teacher ratings. Together, these limitations (of time demands and narrow focus) of traditional assessments highlight the need for simple questionnaire measures.</p> <p>In response to this void, a Canadian research group developed a multidimensional rating system, the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that enables teachers to monitor preschool children's developmental health and well‐being. The EDI has five distinct (social, emotional, physical, cognitive, and communicative) subscales (Janus & Offord, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>] ). To date, the EDI has been administered to a large population sample of 16,000 4‐ and 5‐year‐olds in Canada (Janus & Offord, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>] ), as well as similarly aged children in many different countries (Brinkman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>] ; Curtin, Baker, Staines, & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>] ; Hagquist & Hellström, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>] ; Ip et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>] ; Janus, Brinkman, & Duku, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>] ; Woolfson, Geddes, McNicol, Booth, & Frank, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref16">74</reflink>] ). Most recently, an adapted version of the EDI has been used in a national census of 261,147 Australian 5‐year‐olds (i.e., 97% of all 5‐year‐olds in the population), which revealed regional disparities in the proportion of children with ‘developmental vulnerabilities’, defined by scores in the bottom decile for each subscale (Brinkman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-3">Limitations of the early development instrument</hd> <p>Although the EDI is clearly a very useful instrument, it is open to at least three different kinds of criticism. The simplest of these concerns its length: At seven pages (104 items), the EDI could easily take a teacher up to 10 hr to complete for a class of 30 children. The second limitation of the EDI concerns the complexity of many of the items (e.g., those relating to milestones in literacy and numeracy). As noted earlier, the EDI was designed in Canada, a country that has an average school entry age of 5.5 years. The more complex items in the EDI are entirely appropriate for this age group, but are not suitable for rating younger children. Indeed, the Australian census study systematically excluded data from children below the age of 4 years, as these children were considered to be too young to attend full‐time schooling. In the UK, however, children receive state support from the age of 3 to attend preschool for 15 hr per week and many do attend full time. Indeed, for low‐income families in the UK, government nursery vouchers are also offered to 2‐year‐olds. To assess these children, a new instrument is needed that is applicable to the particular issues that arise when very young children attend educational settings. For example, our initial focus group discussions highlighted the salience of specific practical skills such as independent use of a toilet, as well as matters of safety (e.g., the ability to use sharp objects such as scissors or forks).</p> <p>The third and perhaps most important criticism of the EDI reflects the general argument that ‘school readiness’ should not be conceptualized solely in terms of child characteristics. Given the inequalities of experience and resources in society, some theorists (e.g., High et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>] ) have argued that the term ‘school readiness’ is both unfair and unhelpful as it appears to place the burden of responsibility for successful school transitions on the child. Instead, these theorists have proposed an interactive model in which families, schools, and communities share a joint responsibility for children's school readiness (e.g., Chien et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>] ; Williford, Maier, Downer, Pianta, & Howes, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref20">71</reflink>] ). Thus, while the EDI is a valuable step forward from more traditional measures that adopt a narrow focus on academic skills, it falls short of recognizing that individual difficulties in children's school readiness often reflect contrasting experiences at home.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-4">Rationale for developing the Brief Early Skills and Support Index</hd> <p>While detailed measures of school readiness such as the EDI have obvious merits, we sought to construct a simpler tool that would minimize the burden on teachers. This is an important goal, as increased workloads resulting from unprecedented levels of governmental targets and curriculum changes have led to widespread problems of stress and fatigue among teachers in Britain. In a national survey of 5,497 working adults, 15% of teaching professionals met diagnostic criteria for a common mental disorder, a prevalence rate that was almost twice as high as in many other professional groups (Stansfeld, Rasul, Head, & Singleton, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref21">63</reflink>] ). In constructing a brief (one page) questionnaire that could be used to identify children in need of extra support during the transition to school or nursery, we took as our inspiration Goodman ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>] ) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. In particular, the brevity of the SDQ has made it a valuable alternative to the in‐depth Child Behaviour Check List (Achenbach, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>] ). Indeed, the SDQ has now been used in numerous population cohort studies (Griffiths, Dezateux, & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>] ; O'Connor, Heron, Golding, Beveridge, & Glover, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref25">53</reflink>] ; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref26">72</reflink>] ).</p> <p>A second motivation for this study was to develop an instrument that, unlike the EDI, could be used to rate both early school‐age children and preschoolers. In some respects, tailoring the questionnaire to younger children also helped to reduce its length. This is because children's cognitive development is, in general, characterized by progressive modularization (i.e., a shift from global to domain specific; Karmiloff‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>] ). Domains that appear distinct in school‐age children (e.g., cognitive and communicative skills; social and emotional skills) are more closely interrelated in younger children and so could be combined. Our discussions with teachers also highlighted the salience of ‘daily living skills’ for very young children attending school or nursery and so we included a new subscale to capture these practical skills (e.g., independent use of a toilet; ability to put on a coat). Designing an instrument that is suitable for younger children is also valuable for developing and evaluating interventions to promote evidence‐based policies. In particular, interventions are known to be more effective when they are applied before problems become entrenched (Bywater, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>] ), such that it is important for educational professionals to be able to identify children in need of extra support from a very early age. Reflecting this view, policymakers have, in recent years, emphasized the importance of the first one thousand days of life (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Finally and perhaps most importantly, by assessing family support, our measure also builds upon growing research evidence that children's long‐term development and adjustment depends upon both early life stress (e.g., Appleyard, Egeland, van Dulmen, & Sroufe, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>] ; Shonkoff, Boyce, & McEwen, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref31">61</reflink>] ) and supportive relationships that can foster children's resilience (Ungar, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref32">68</reflink>] ; Wessells, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref33">69</reflink>] ). This view was also forcefully expressed by the teachers who took part in focus groups conducted at the start of the current study, leading to the inclusion of a separate subscale for family support. Note that our selection of items (relating to attendance, punctuality, praise, home reading, talk about fun at home) was guided by thoughts about what teachers might reasonably be expected to know about family life.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-5">Family income and support as predictors of children's adjustment and development</hd> <p>A key argument for early entry into formal education is that it offers children from low‐income families a chance to narrow the achievement gap and so break intergenerational cycles of disadvantage. Social mobility in the UK has dropped dramatically over the past generation, such that it is now lower than in Canada, Germany, and Scandinavia (but on a par with the USA; Blanden, Gregg, & Machin, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>] ; Dorling, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>] ). Moreover, research findings consistently highlight contrasts in educational aspirations and achievement as pivotal to this problem of social immobility (e.g., Engle & Black, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>] ; McLoyd, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>] ). Externalizing problems in childhood show a similar social gradient (e.g., Attride‐Stirling, Davis, Day, & Sclare, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>] ; Korenman, Miller, & Sjaastad, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>] ) and findings from several studies indicate that this association is largely explained by contrasts in parenting quality (e.g., Brooks‐Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>] ; Maughan, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In recent years, researchers have focused on socio‐economic contrasts in parental support for reading (e.g., Hartas, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>] ). However, evidence that attachment security predicts both cognitive performance (e.g., Moss & St‐Laurent, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref43">50</reflink>] ) and academic achievement (West, Mathews, & Kerns, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref44">70</reflink>] ) suggests that general differences in the quality of parent–child interactions are at least as important as specific parenting practices. West et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref45">70</reflink>] ) found that children's self‐regulation, cooperative skills, and peer relationships at least partly mediated the link between early attachment and later academic achievement. These findings point to the value of assessing different aspects of both family support and children's well‐being and development as disparities in family support are likely to be closely associated with contrasts in children's ‘school readiness’.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-6">Child predictors of adjustment and development: Gender and birth order</hd> <p>Concerns about the early age of school entry in the UK typically focus on boys, who show poorer literacy skills than girls (e.g., Hammer, Farkas, & Maczuga, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>] ; Logan & Johnston, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>] ) and are more likely to receive a diagnosis of conduct disorder (Office of National Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref48">54</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref49">55</reflink>] ), which in turn is strongly associated with academic failure (Carroll, Maughan, Goodman, & Meltzer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>] ; Kessler, Foster, Saunders, & Stang, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>] ). However, gender differences in child psychopathology vary considerably in magnitude by informant (Rutter, Caspi, & Moffitt, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref52">59</reflink>] ) and agreement between informants is, at best, only moderate (De Los Reyes, Henry, Tolan, & Wakschlag, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref53">18</reflink>] ). This variation across informants indicates an ‘eye‐of‐the‐beholder effect’, highlighting the need to assess the measurement equivalence of adjustment ratings for girls and boys.</p> <p>Disparities may also exist within families. Evidence from several studies shows a modest but consistent advantage in language ability for firstborn or only children (e.g., Berglund, Eriksson, & Westerlund, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>] ; Fenson, Dale, Reznick, & Bates, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref55">22</reflink>] ). Parent–infant interaction is a key predictor of language development (for a recent review, see Topping, Dekhinet, & Zeedyk, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref56">65</reflink>] ) and so the most plausible explanation for this contrast hinges on differences in parents' availability and talk to firstborn versus later‐born children (Hoff‐Ginsberg, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>] ). To our knowledge, however, studies have yet to examine whether firstborn children receive greater family support at key transitional periods, such as the start of nursery or school.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-7">Summary of study goals</hd> <p>Our main goal was to develop a questionnaire that would provide a useful alternative to the EDI through three key features: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) brevity; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>) suitability for rating both very young children and children in the early school years; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>) a definition of school readiness that encompassed not only a broad set of child skills but also support from families. Beyond evaluating the psychometric properties of this questionnaire (including its test–retest reliability), we also aimed to extend the scope of existing research and examine the construct validity of the BESSI through the analysis of links between child adjustment/development and both family and child predictors.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-8">Methods</hd> <hd id="AN0108813927-9">Constructing the Brief Early Skills and Support Index</hd> <p>Figure [NaN] provides an overview of the study methods. Following standard psychometric procedures for developing a questionnaire (e.g., Rust & Golombok, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>] ), we began with an initial grid of 80 items measuring children's language and cognition, daily living skills, social and emotional development, and self‐regulation. To improve the ease and speed of administration, the items in this grid were modified to follow a single format: A statement followed by four alternative response categories (strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree). The items in the grid were based on items in existing measures (e.g., the Early Development Instrument: Janus & Offord, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref62">37</reflink>] ; the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale: Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref63">62</reflink>] ; Self‐Control Rating Scale: Kendall & Wilcox, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>] ), but then modified following responses from 23 nursery and reception teachers at 18 schools who were invited to comment on the wording and the appropriateness of individual items. Eleven of these 18 schools sent representatives to attend focus groups which were conducted separately with (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>) nursery/reception teachers and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) head teachers (in total, 32 teachers took part in these focus groups). From these teachers' feedback, we generated a 50‐item questionnaire which included items about family support as well as the child's behaviour and abilities. Thirty nursery and reception teachers completed this 50‐item questionnaire for 185 children (98 boys). The final 30 items were then selected (by excluding items that showed poor discrimination or limited variance in item response curves) to provide information about social skills, self‐regulation, daily living skills, language and cognition, and family support.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-10">Recruitment and sample</hd> <p>Initial recruitment was assisted by local education authorities who paid teachers to attend focus groups. In this study, we report findings from two independent samples. For the main study, a total of 1,542 questionnaires were gathered from 44 teachers at 32 primary schools and 54 nursery teachers at 29 nurseries in the Wirral in the north‐west of the UK. We excluded those questionnaires from which age could not be calculated (N = 52) and those in which teachers did not report the child's gender (N = 17) or complete any of the questionnaire items (N = 1). We also excluded 12 questionnaires for children aged below 2.50 years and four questionnaires for children aged over 5.50 years. This resulted in a final sample of 1,456 children. Table [NaN] shows the characteristics of the final sample. The Wirral has above average levels of child poverty in the UK (Wirral Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref67">73</reflink>] ), and the proportion of children in the sample eligible for free school meals (24.5%) is higher than the national average of 18% (Iniesta‐Martinez & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Sample characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Total Sample</th><th align="center">Nursery</th><th align="center">Reception</th><th align="center">2.50 – 3.49 Years</th><th align="center">3.50 – 4.49 Years</th><th align="center">4.50 – 5.50 Years</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean Age in Years (SD)</td><td align="char" char=" ">4.27 (0.64)</td><td align="char" char=" ">3.69 (0.42)</td><td align="char" char=" ">4.75 (0.29)</td><td align="char" char=" ">3.23 (0.22)</td><td align="char" char=" ">4.03 (0.30)</td><td align="char" char=" ">4.88 (0.22)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% Male (N)</td><td align="char" char=" ">49.2 (717)</td><td align="char" char=" ">48.4 (314)</td><td align="char" char=" ">49.9 (403)</td><td align="char" char=" ">47.6 (101)</td><td align="char" char=" ">49.3 (307)</td><td align="char" char=" ">49.8 (309)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% Female (N)</td><td align="char" char=" ">50.8 (739)</td><td align="char" char=" ">51.6 (335)</td><td align="char" char=" ">50.1 (404)</td><td align="char" char=" ">52.4 (111)</td><td align="char" char=" ">50.7 (316)</td><td align="char" char=" ">50.2 (312)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% White British (N)</td><td align="char" char=" ">88.7 (1,279)</td><td align="char" char=" ">79.4 (519)</td><td align="char" char=" ">96.4 (760)</td><td align="char" char=" ">84.5 (180)</td><td align="char" char=" ">82.4 (514)</td><td align="char" char=" ">96.7 (585)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% Children with older siblings (N)</td><td align="char" char=" ">56.5 (813)</td><td align="char" char=" ">60.8 (388)</td><td align="char" char=" ">53.1 (425)</td><td align="char" char=" ">43.8 (91)</td><td align="char" char=" ">41.1 (253)</td><td align="char" char=" ">45.8 (281)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% Eligible for free school meals (N)</td><td align="char" char=" ">24.5 (300)</td><td align="char" char=" ">24.7 (108)</td><td align="char" char=" ">24.4 (192)</td><td align="char" char=" ">20.7 (29)</td><td align="char" char=" ">25.2 (120)</td><td align="char" char=" ">24.9 (151)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% Special educational needs (N)</td><td align="char" char=" ">5.6 (79)</td><td align="char" char=" ">4.8 (30)</td><td align="char" char=" ">6.2 (49)</td><td align="char" char=" ">5.3 (11)</td><td align="char" char=" ">5.8 (35)</td><td align="char" char=" ">5.4 (33)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The second sample was a group of 258 children (144 girls, 114 boys) for whom we were able to gather questionnaire data at two time‐points approximately 1 month apart to examine the test–retest reliability of the BESSI. This sample of children was attending 10 different classes in two distinct geographical regions of the UK (the north‐west and south‐east) and ranged in age from 3.07 to 5.84 years, M = 4.35 years, SD = 0.66, with 136 in nursery and 122 in reception. This sample was diverse both ethnically (48% White British) and socially (23% eligible for free school meals). The mean interval between the two time‐points was 33.59 days, SD = 6.88 days, range: 25–50 days.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-11">Results</hd> <p>We begin by addressing the first study goal by describing children's scores on the BESSI at an item level and presenting the measurement properties of the BESSI. For each subscale, we use latent variable modelling to examine the factor structure, gender invariance, between‐classroom effects, and test–retest reliability. Next, we turn to the second study goal, using structural equation models to examine family and child correlates of individual differences in BESSI ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-12">Missing data and descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Supporting the view that the BESSI is quick and easy to complete, missing data on the BESSI items for the full sample of 1,456 children was very low, ranging from 0 to 5.6% on all but one item. The one exception, ‘Regularly reads at home’, was missing for 11% of cases. To assess the pattern of missing data for ‘Regularly reads at home’, we conducted a binary logistic regression in which a dummy variable for item non‐response was regressed onto age, gender, free school meal status, ethnicity, presence of an older sibling, and the other 29 BESSI items. Given the large number of predictor variables in this regression, we adopted a more stringent alpha of.01. The regression revealed that age, B = −1.36, SE = 0.34, Wald (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) = 15.61, p < .0001, was the only significant predictor of missing data on this item. Specifically, teachers were less likely to report data for younger children, likely reflecting the heightened emphasis on literacy (e.g., book bag systems) in the first year of primary school compared with nursery classes. No other questionnaire item or demographic variable predicted non‐response on this item. It is therefore likely that the missing data for the ‘Regularly reads at home’ item met the assumptions for being missing at random (MAR; e.g., Acock, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>] ). To avoid loss of data, we estimated missing values using mean‐ and variance‐weighted least squares (WLSMV) in Mplus. The demographic section also contained missing data (for which we used listwise deletion): Ethnicity for 31 cases (2.1%), presence of an older sibling for 35 cases (2.3%), diagnosis with special educational needs for 58 cases (3.9%), and free school meal status for 250 cases (16.9%), almost all of whom were attending nurseries part‐time.</p> <p>Table [NaN] shows descriptive statistics for each BESSI item in the whole sample and divided by age, gender, and free school meal status. Responses to each item ranged from 1 (agree strongly) to 4 (disagree strongly) such that higher scores indicated greater risk. For consistency, we reverse‐scored the negatively worded items (marked with an asterisk * in Table [NaN] ). As there was marked positive skew in the response patterns for the majority of BESSI items, we recoded them into binary indicators of risk, categorizing scores of 1 and 2 as indicating ‘no risk’ and scores of 3 and 4 as indicating ‘risk’.</p> <p>Descriptive statistics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Subscale</th><th align="center">Item</th><th align="center">M (SD)</th><th align="center">% Sample in the ‘Problem’ Category</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Whole</th><th align="center">2.50 – 3.49</th><th align="center">3.50 – 4.49</th><th align="center">4.50 – 5.50</th><th align="center">Girls</th><th align="center">Boys</th><th align="center">No FSM</th><th align="center">FSM</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavioural Adjustment</td><td align="left">Good at waiting patiently (N = 1,472)</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.07 (0.82)</td><td align="char" char=".">24.7</td><td align="char" char=".">30.7</td><td align="char" char=".">23.0</td><td align="char" char=".">24.3</td><td align="char" char=".">18.2</td><td align="char" char=".">31.4</td><td align="char" char=".">23.1</td><td align="char" char=".">29.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Good at calming down (N = 1,471)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.99 (0.66)</td><td align="char" char=".">14.8</td><td align="char" char=".">15.8</td><td align="char" char=".">15.1</td><td align="char" char=".">14.2</td><td align="char" char=".">10.7</td><td align="char" char=".">19.1</td><td align="char" char=".">13.8</td><td align="char" char=".">19.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Easily distracted (N = 1,471)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.47 (0.86)</td><td align="char" char=".">46.8</td><td align="char" char=".">56.5</td><td align="char" char=".">45.3</td><td align="char" char=".">44.9</td><td align="char" char=".">37.8</td><td align="char" char=".">56.0</td><td align="char" char=".">43.0</td><td align="char" char=".">56.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Easily frustrated (N = 1,466)</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.16 (0.72)</td><td align="char" char=".">26.7</td><td align="char" char=".">30.4</td><td align="char" char=".">25.5</td><td align="char" char=".">26.7</td><td align="char" char=".">19.2</td><td align="char" char=".">34.6</td><td align="char" char=".">26.0</td><td align="char" char=".">35.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grabs others' belongings (N = 1,476)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.89 (0.69)</td><td align="char" char=".">14.8</td><td align="char" char=".">18.3</td><td align="char" char=".">15.1</td><td align="char" char=".">13.2</td><td align="char" char=".">10.1</td><td align="char" char=".">19.6</td><td align="char" char=".">13.4</td><td align="char" char=".">19.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Often interrupts (N = 1,466)</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.16 (0.80)</td><td align="char" char=".">27.5</td><td align="char" char=".">23.2</td><td align="char" char=".">26.2</td><td align="char" char=".">30.3</td><td align="char" char=".">23.7</td><td align="char" char=".">31.4</td><td align="char" char=".">25.4</td><td align="char" char=".">34.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Can play with lots of children (N = 1,473)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.92 (0.75)</td><td align="char" char=".">17.9</td><td align="char" char=".">18.1</td><td align="char" char=".">17.0</td><td align="char" char=".">18.8</td><td align="char" char=".">13.5</td><td align="char" char=".">22.6</td><td align="char" char=".">17.8</td><td align="char" char=".">23.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Usually happy to share (N = 1,466)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.93 (0.69)</td><td align="char" char=".">14.5</td><td align="char" char=".">18.2</td><td align="char" char=".">14.0</td><td align="char" char=".">13.8</td><td align="char" char=".">9.3</td><td align="char" char=".">20.0</td><td align="char" char=".">13.5</td><td align="char" char=".">20.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Respectful towards adults (N = 1,466)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.78 (0.58)</td><td align="char" char=".">6.4</td><td align="char" char=".">7.5</td><td align="char" char=".">6.9</td><td align="char" char=".">5.5</td><td align="char" char=".">4.6</td><td align="char" char=".">8.3</td><td align="char" char=".">5.1</td><td align="char" char=".">11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Has temper tantrums (N = 1,473)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.96 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">18.6</td><td align="char" char=".">19.9</td><td align="char" char=".">18.4</td><td align="char" char=".">18.4</td><td align="char" char=".">15.4</td><td align="char" char=".">21.8</td><td align="char" char=".">16.9</td><td align="char" char=".">27.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Responds poorly to reprimands (N = 1,473)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.93 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">16.8</td><td align="char" char=".">20.4</td><td align="char" char=".">16.1</td><td align="char" char=".">16.3</td><td align="char" char=".">12.5</td><td align="char" char=".">21.1</td><td align="char" char=".">14.5</td><td align="char" char=".">24.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Has trouble sitting still (N = 1,463)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.27 (0.86)</td><td align="char" char=".">34.9</td><td align="char" char=".">39.0</td><td align="char" char=".">33.3</td><td align="char" char=".">35.0</td><td align="char" char=".">25.4</td><td align="char" char=".">44.5</td><td align="char" char=".">31.8</td><td align="char" char=".">44.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Language and Cognition</td><td align="left">Speaks clearly (N = 1,472)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.00 (.83)</td><td align="char" char=".">23.2</td><td align="char" char=".">29.3</td><td align="char" char=".">23.0</td><td align="char" char=".">21.3</td><td align="char" char=".">17.1</td><td align="char" char=".">29.7</td><td align="char" char=".">19.1</td><td align="char" char=".">36.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoys identifying letters (N = 1,468)<sup>,</sup><sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.09 (0.77)</td><td align="char" char=".">28.2</td><td align="char" char=".">53.3</td><td align="char" char=".">30.5</td><td align="char" char=".">17.2</td><td align="char" char=".">21.7</td><td align="char" char=".">34.9</td><td align="char" char=".">22.1</td><td align="char" char=".">36.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Understands wh‐questions (N = 1,469)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.98 (0.75)</td><td align="char" char=".">20.1</td><td align="char" char=".">23.4</td><td align="char" char=".">21.6</td><td align="char" char=".">17.6</td><td align="char" char=".">16.0</td><td align="char" char=".">24.5</td><td align="char" char=".">15.2</td><td align="char" char=".">34.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Can recognize his/her name (N = 1,466)<sup>,</sup><sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.88 (0.79)</td><td align="char" char=".">19.3</td><td align="char" char=".">47.2</td><td align="char" char=".">20.7</td><td align="char" char=".">8.2</td><td align="char" char=".">14.8</td><td align="char" char=".">23.8</td><td align="char" char=".">12.3</td><td align="char" char=".">29.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Uses 1‐to‐1 correspondence (N = 1,464)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.92 (0.77)</td><td align="char" char=".">19.2</td><td align="char" char=".">38.9</td><td align="char" char=".">20.4</td><td align="char" char=".">11.3</td><td align="char" char=".">16.2</td><td align="char" char=".">22.2</td><td align="char" char=".">13.6</td><td align="char" char=".">29.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoys songs and rhymes (N = 1,468)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.64 (0.59)</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td><td align="char" char=".">3.8</td><td align="char" char=".">4.9</td><td align="char" char=".">5.5</td><td align="char" char=".">1.2</td><td align="char" char=".">9.0</td><td align="char" char=".">4.8</td><td align="char" char=".">5.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Daily Living Skills</td><td align="left">Able to work independently (N = 1,473)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.08 (0.78)</td><td align="char" char=".">25.8</td><td align="char" char=".">30.1</td><td align="char" char=".">26.1</td><td align="char" char=".">24.0</td><td align="char" char=".">17.3</td><td align="char" char=".">34.7</td><td align="char" char=".">23.8</td><td align="char" char=".">33.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Careful using scissors (N = 1,464)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.92 (0.63)</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td><td align="char" char=".">18.8</td><td align="char" char=".">12.7</td><td align="char" char=".">11.5</td><td align="char" char=".">7.5</td><td align="char" char=".">18.8</td><td align="char" char=".">10.6</td><td align="char" char=".">20.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Does not need help with fork (N = 1,388)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.87 (0.63)</td><td align="char" char=".">10.7</td><td align="char" char=".">7.9</td><td align="char" char=".">12.3</td><td align="char" char=".">10.0</td><td align="char" char=".">8.5</td><td align="char" char=".">13.1</td><td align="char" char=".">9.0</td><td align="char" char=".">17.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Fully toilet trained (N = 1,466)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.64 (0.67)</td><td align="char" char=".">7.2</td><td align="char" char=".">18.0</td><td align="char" char=".">6.9</td><td align="char" char=".">3.7</td><td align="char" char=".">4.9</td><td align="char" char=".">9.7</td><td align="char" char=".">5.2</td><td align="char" char=".">9.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Appears aimless (N = 1,468)</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.04 (0.72)</td><td align="char" char=".">22.1</td><td align="char" char=".">21.0</td><td align="char" char=".">21.6</td><td align="char" char=".">23.0</td><td align="char" char=".">18.2</td><td align="char" char=".">26.3</td><td align="char" char=".">21.3</td><td align="char" char=".">26.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Needs help with belongings (N = 1,466)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.18 (0.75)</td><td align="char" char=".">29.9</td><td align="char" char=".">41.0</td><td align="char" char=".">27.5</td><td align="char" char=".">28.5</td><td align="char" char=".">20.2</td><td align="char" char=".">40.4</td><td align="char" char=".">29.3</td><td align="char" char=".">36.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Family Support</td><td align="left">Receives praise (N = 1,468)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.72 (0.59)</td><td align="char" char=".">6.3</td><td align="char" char=".">3.2</td><td align="char" char=".">7.2</td><td align="char" char=".">6.5</td><td align="char" char=".">5.6</td><td align="char" char=".">7.0</td><td align="char" char=".">3.6</td><td align="char" char=".">16.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Always punctual (N = 1,456)</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.81 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">13.7</td><td align="char" char=".">12.9</td><td align="char" char=".">16.0</td><td align="char" char=".">11.6</td><td align="char" char=".">13.8</td><td align="char" char=".">13.7</td><td align="char" char=".">8.3</td><td align="char" char=".">29.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rarely misses a day (N = 1,473)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">1.77 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">11.7</td><td align="char" char=".">10.2</td><td align="char" char=".">17.0</td><td align="char" char=".">6.8</td><td align="char" char=".">11.4</td><td align="char" char=".">12.0</td><td align="char" char=".">7.6</td><td align="char" char=".">23.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Talks about fun at home (N = 1,469)<sup>,</sup></td><td align="char" char=" ">2.07 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">25.9</td><td align="char" char=".">30.7</td><td align="char" char=".">25.1</td><td align="char" char=".">25.2</td><td align="char" char=".">20.8</td><td align="char" char=".">31.4</td><td align="char" char=".">20.3</td><td align="char" char=".">46.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regularly reads at home (N = 1,306)</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.02 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">20.9</td><td align="char" char=".">20.4</td><td align="char" char=".">21.5</td><td align="char" char=".">20.5</td><td align="char" char=".">19.8</td><td align="char" char=".">22.2</td><td align="char" char=".">13.8</td><td align="char" char=".">45.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Often appears sleepy (N = 1,471)</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.01 (0.67)</td><td align="char" char=".">18.6</td><td align="char" char=".">14.4</td><td align="char" char=".">19.1</td><td align="char" char=".">19.5</td><td align="char" char=".">16.5</td><td align="char" char=".">20.8</td><td align="char" char=".">15.8</td><td align="char" char=".">27.7</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note. *Reverse‐scored. aSignificant age‐related difference. bSignificant gender difference. cSignificant FSM difference. α = .0016.</p> <p>For eight items more than 25% of the sample fell into the ‘risk’ category: ‘easily distracted’ (46.8%); ‘trouble sitting still’ (34.9%); ‘needs help with belongings’ (29.9%); ‘enjoys identifying letters’ (28.2%); ‘often interrupts’ (27.5%); ‘easily frustrated’ (26.7%); ‘talks about fun at home’ (25.9%); and ‘able to work independently’ (25.8%). As indicated in Table [NaN] , there were significant age‐related differences in performance on six items with older children being less likely than younger children to fall into the ‘risk’ category. There were significant gender differences on 20 items with boys being more likely than girls to fall into the ‘risk’ category. Finally, supporting the sensitivity of the BESSI to contrasts in adjustment and development associated with family poverty, 18 items showed that children eligible for free school meals were significantly more likely than their peers to be categorized as ‘at risk’.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-13">Measurement properties of the BESSI</hd> <hd id="AN0108813927-14">Factor structure of the BESSI</hd> <p>Table S1 shows the tetrachoric correlation matrix for the 30 items of the BESSI. To identify the best‐fitting measurement model for the 30 indicators of the BESSI, we compared the fit of five non‐nested latent factor models using confirmatory factor analysis. We estimated the model parameters with a mean‐ and variance‐adjusted weighted least squares estimator in Mplus version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref71">52</reflink>] ). We assessed model fit using the following criteria: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .05, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .90 and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ 0.90 (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>] ; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref73">42</reflink>] ). In each of the subsequent models, we specified no cross‐loading items and no correlated errors. In Model 1, we tested a single factor solution in which all 30 items loaded onto one latent factor. In Model 2, we tested a two factor solution in which the 24 items pertaining to children's abilities and behaviours loaded onto one latent factor and the six items assessing children's family support loaded onto a second correlated latent factor. In Model 3, we tested a solution containing three correlated latent factors. The first latent factor contained 12 items relating to children's self‐regulation and social–emotional skills. The second latent factor contained 12 items relating to children's language and cognition and daily living skills. The third latent factor contained six items assessing children's family support. In Model 4, we evaluated a solution containing four correlated latent factors: A 12‐item Behavioural Adjustment factor (containing items relating to self‐regulation and social–emotional skills), a 6‐item Language and Cognition factor, a 6‐item Daily Living Skills factor, and a 6‐item Family Support factor. In Model 5, we assessed a solution containing five correlated 6‐item factors: Self‐regulation, Social–emotional skills, Language and Cognition, Daily Living Skills, and Family Support. Table [NaN] shows the fit indices for each of these models.</p> <p>Fit indices for measurement models</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Model</th><th align="left">Description</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">RMSEA [90% CI]</th><th align="center">Δχ<sup>2</sup> (df)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Whole Sample</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">One latent factor</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=" ">.07 [0.07, 0.08]</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Two latent factors</td><td align="char" char=".">.90</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=" ">.06 [0.06, 0.07]</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Three latent factors</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.94</td><td align="char" char=" ">.05 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Four latent factors</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.05 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Five latent factors</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.05 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Multiple‐Group CFA</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Measurement Invariance: Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Equal form, loadings and thresholds</td><td align="char" char=".">.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">Equal factor variance: Behavioural Adjustment</td><td align="char" char=".">.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.03 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Equal factor variance: Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition</td><td align="char" char=".">.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.03, 0.04]</td><td align="char" char=" ">4.19 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">Equal factor variance: Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, Daily Living Skills</td><td align="char" char=".">.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.03, 0.04]</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.88 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Equal factor variance: Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, Daily Living Skills, Family Support</td><td align="char" char=".">.96</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.03, 0.04]</td><td align="char" char=" ">12.49 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">Equal latent means: Behavioural Adjustment</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.94</td><td align="char" char=" ">.05 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">61.09 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">Equal latent means: Language and Cognition</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">38.02 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">Equal latent means: Daily Living Skills</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.04 [0.04, 0.05]</td><td align="char" char=" ">55.40 (1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Multilevel CFA</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">Four factors, two levels, factor loadings freely estimated</td><td align="char" char=".">.94</td><td align="char" char=".">.93</td><td align="char" char=" ">.03</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">Four factors, two levels, factor loadings equal across levels</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.95</td><td align="char" char=" ">.02</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 p < .05</p> <p>Although Model 5 exhibited good fit, the solution was inadmissible as the latent variable covariance matrix was not positive definite. The standardized covariance between the self‐regulation and social–emotional skills latent factors exceeded acceptable values. Model 4 therefore provided the best fit to the data. Table [NaN] shows the unstandardized and completely standardized parameter estimates for this final measurement model as well as the standardized covariances between the four latent factors. Cronbach's alpha values for the raw scores of each of these latent factors were as follows:.88 for Behavioural Adjustment,.76 for Language and Cognition,.67 for Daily Living Skills, and.69 for Family Support.</p> <p>Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates for multilevel CFA (Loadings freely estimated across levels)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Latent Factor</th><th align="left">Questionnaire Item</th><th align="center">Single Level</th><th align="left">ICC</th><th align="center">Within</th><th align="center">Between</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Est.</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Std.</th><th align="center">Est.</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Std.</th><th align="center">Est.</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Std.</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavioural Adjustment</td><td align="left">Good at waiting patiently</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.91</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Good at calming down</td><td align="char" char=".">1.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.90</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Easily distracted</td><td align="char" char=".">0.91</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.91</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.22</td><td align="char" char=".">.74</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Easily frustrated</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.54</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.67</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grabs others' belongings</td><td align="char" char=".">0.94</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Often interrupts</td><td align="char" char=".">0.91</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.82</td><td align="char" char=".">0.97</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Can play with lots of children</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.68</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">.78</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Usually happy to share</td><td align="char" char=".">0.97</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.86</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=".">1.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Respectful towards adults</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">.61</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Has temper tantrums</td><td align="char" char=".">0.91</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Responds poorly to reprimands</td><td align="char" char=".">0.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.73</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Has trouble sitting still</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Language and Cognition</td><td align="left">Speaks clearly</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.78</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoys identifying letters</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.44</td><td align="char" char=".">1.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td><td align="char" char=".">1.67</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">.70</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Understands wh‐questions</td><td align="char" char=".">1.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">1.41</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td><td align="char" char=".">2.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">.96</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Can recognize his/her name</td><td align="char" char=".">0.91</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.47</td><td align="char" char=".">1.29</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.85</td><td align="char" char=".">1.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.44</td><td align="char" char=".">.47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Uses 1‐to‐1 correspondence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.94</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">1.31</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoys songs and rhymes</td><td align="char" char=".">0.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.72</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.96</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">1.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.49</td><td align="char" char=".">.67</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Daily Living Skills</td><td align="left">Able to work independently</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.22</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.91</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Careful using scissors</td><td align="char" char=".">0.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td><td align="char" char=".">1.37</td><td align="char" char=".">0.32</td><td align="char" char=".">.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Does not need help with fork</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.53</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.66</td><td align="char" char=".">0.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Fully toilet trained</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.28</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.53</td><td align="char" char=".">0.47</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.64</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Appears aimless</td><td align="char" char=".">0.67</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.66</td><td align="char" char=".">0.28</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Needs help with belongings</td><td align="char" char=".">0.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.60</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Family Support</td><td align="left">Receives praise</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.67</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Always punctual</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.58</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rarely misses a day</td><td align="char" char=".">0.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.56</td><td align="char" char=".">0.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.66</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Talks about fun at home</td><td align="char" char=".">1.22</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">2.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.95</td><td align="char" char=".">.94</td><td align="char" char=".">2.04</td><td align="char" char=".">1.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regularly reads at home</td><td align="char" char=".">1.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.37</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">1.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.38</td><td align="char" char=".">.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Often appears sleepy</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.67</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.78</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 p < .05</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-15">Measurement invariance of the BESSI across boys and girls</hd> <p>To assess the suitability of the BESSI for boys and girls, we used multiple‐group CFA to assess the measurement invariance of the four‐factor solution. We first tested a baseline model (Model 6) in which the four latent factors were specified to have equal form, loadings, and thresholds across boys and girls. In the next four models (models 7, 8, 9 and 10), we constrained the latent factor variances to equality one factor at a time. We assessed whether each successive constraint resulted in a significant change in chi‐square relative to the previous solution. Table [NaN] shows the model fit indices and chi‐square difference test results for each of these models. There was a significant degradation in model fit when the variance of the Family Support latent factor was constrained to equality for boys and girls (Model 10). We therefore released this constraint.</p> <p>Having demonstrated the measurement invariance of three of the four latent factors, we examined whether there were gender differences in each of the three invariant latent factors of the BESSI. Taking each factor separately, we constrained the means of each latent factor to be equal for boys and girls (models 11, 12 and 13). Table [NaN] shows that there were significant latent mean differences between boys and girls on each of the three invariant latent factors. Specifically, compared with girls, boys exhibited more problems in Behavioural Adjustment, d = .52, p < .0001, Language and Cognition, d = .47, p < .0001, and Daily Living Skills, d = .64, p < .0001. Together, these findings indicate that three of the four latent factors functioned equally well for boys and girls and showed genuine latent mean differences by gender.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-16">Multilevel modelling of the BESSI: The role of between‐teacher differences</hd> <p>The BESSI data were obtained from 98 different respondents each of whom rated a small group of children (range: 6 ≤ N ≤ 33). Like data from other observational instruments, the BESSI ratings were clustered together and so variance in ratings might be due to both child‐level variation (i.e., individual differences) and teacher‐ or class‐level variation (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>] ; Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref75">51</reflink>] ). To assess the proportion of total variance in each item accounted for by between‐teacher variance, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs) for each of the 30 BESSI items (Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>] ). Given that the ICCs (see Table [NaN] ) were >.10 for all items, we specified a multilevel CFA to examine whether the four correlated latent factors measurement model provided a good fit to the data once between‐teacher differences were accounted for (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref77">13</reflink>] ).</p> <p>First, we specified a baseline multilevel model with four correlated latent factors at the within (individual) and between (class) level (Model 14). This model provided an adequate fit to the data (see Table [NaN] for model fit and Table [NaN] for parameter estimates). The residual variance for one between‐teacher item (‘Speaks clearly’) was fixed to zero as the between‐group variance was close to zero. At the within and between levels, all factor loadings were statistically significant. To test the equality of factor loadings across levels, we constrained the factor loadings to be equal across the two levels (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>] ). This model (Model 15) provided a good fit to the data (see Table [NaN] ). Our findings indicate that the four latent factors solution provides a good fit to the data even accounting for potential effects of between‐teacher variance.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-17">Test–retest reliability of the BESSI</hd> <p>We first examined intrarater reliability for each item by calculating Cohen's kappa (κ) values for each binary‐scored BESSI item. Mean κ values and ranges for each scale were.60,.29 ≤ κ ≤ .78 for Behavioural Adjustment;.64,.43 ≤ κ ≤ .74 for Language and Cognition;.53,.37 ≤ κ ≤ .68 for Daily Living Skills; and.71,.62 ≤ κ ≤ .80 for Family Support. Next, we tested the fit of the four latent factor measurement model to the data at Time 1 (test) and Time 2 (retest) using CFA and the WLSMV estimator in Mplus. The model showed a good fit to the data at Time 1, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, and RMSEA = .05, and Time 2, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, and RMSEA = .04. Each latent factor showed good internal consistency at both time‐points. For Time 1 and Time 2 (respectively), Cronbach's alpha values were.86 and.88 for Behavioural Adjustment;.77 and.77 for Language and Cognition;.67 and.61 for Daily Living Skills; and.69 and.67 for Family Support. The test–retest reliability of factor scale sum totals over the 1‐month period was demonstrated by the following intraclass correlations:.81 for Behavioural Adjustment;.79 for Language and Cognition;.69 for Daily Living Skills; and.92 for Family Support.</p> <p>To assess the stability of the 4 latent factors of the BESSI across the 1‐month test–retest period, we then specified an eight latent factor model in which each of four latent factors at Time 1 was correlated with each of the four latent factors at Time 2. We constrained factor loadings to be equal from Time 1 to Time 2 and allowed the residuals of each indicator at Time 1 to be correlated with its corresponding indicator at Time 2 to control for any item‐specific systematic variance. This model fits the data well, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, and RMSEA = .03. All the latent factor loadings, variances, and covariances were significant, all ps < .01. Importantly, the latent factors showed strong 1‐month test–retest reliability: Behavioural Adjustment, ϕ = .91, p < .001; Language and Cognition, ϕ = .91, p < .001; Daily Living Skills, ϕ = .88, p < .001; and Family Support, ϕ = .98, p < .001. The strong test–retest reliability shown in this subsample of 258 children enabled us to explore the findings from the full sample of 1456 children with reasonable confidence.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-18">Family and child correlates of problem ratings on the BESSI</hd> <p>To examine the relations between child‐level characteristics, we specified a two‐level structural model in which each of the four latent factors was regressed onto age and dichotomous variables representing gender, ethnicity, free school meal status, and presence of an older sibling at the individual level only. Figure [NaN] (Panel A) shows a simplified path diagram depicting only the significant paths at the individual level. The parameter estimates for this model provide information about the extent to which child‐level characteristics account for individual differences in BESSI ratings when potential effects of between‐teacher differences are taken into account. This first model (Figure [NaN] , Panel A) provided a good fit to the data, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .02. Behavioural Adjustment latent factor scores showed weak associations with gender (higher scores for boys) and family income (higher scores among children eligible for free school meals). Latent factor scores for Language and Cognition and for Daily Living Skills were moderately related to three predictors: Age (fewer problems among older children); gender; and family income (more problems among boys and children eligible for free school meals). Family Support latent factor scores were predicted by gender, family income, and birth order, with greater problem scores shown by boys, children eligible for free school meals and children with older siblings.</p> <p>Next, we sought to examine the relations between Family Support latent factor scores and each of the three child‐focused latent factors when age, gender, ethnicity, presence of an older sibling, and free school meal status were taken into account. We specified a multilevel structural equation model in which the Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, and Daily Living Skills latent factors were regressed onto the Family Support latent factor and each of the other predictors (Figure [NaN] , Panel B) at the child level only. This model provided a good fit to the data, CFI = .94, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .02. Higher problem ratings on the Family Support latent factor were strongly related to difficulties in Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, and Daily Living Skills. Interestingly, when Family Support was added to the regression model as a predictor, the independent association between free school meal status and each of the three child‐focused latent factors became non‐significant. Gender remained an independent weak‐to‐moderate predictor of ratings on each of the latent factors. Age continued to exert a moderate independent effect on Language and Cognition latent factor scores. Together, the findings from these models support the construct validity of the BESSI.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The first goal of the current study was to construct a short questionnaire – the Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI) – that could be used to identify young children in need of extra support during the transition to school or nursery, without adding a significant burden to teachers' heavy workloads. Confirming the success of this endeavour, each of the four BESSI subscales (i.e., Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, Daily Living Skills, and Family Support) showed good internal consistency and good test–retest reliability across a 1‐month interval. In addition, the variability in scores for individual BESSI items confirmed their suitability for assessing children from toddlerhood to early school age. In this discussion, we first consider how our results compare with other existing research, commenting on contrasts in the measures used that may explain between‐study differences. Next, we highlight several potential applications of the BESSI in future research and in educational practice.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-20">How do our findings compare with those from other studies?</hd> <p>Perhaps the most interesting findings to emerge from this study were the robust links between individual differences in teachers' ratings of family support (e.g., praise, attendance, punctuality, regularity of reading, and talking about fun at home) and variation in each of the three BESSI child subscales. Moreover, family support ratings fully accounted for the lower scores on each outcome among children who were eligible for free school meals. At first glance, these results appear to contrast with findings from a nationally representative cohort study in the United Kingdom – the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). Results from the MCS indicate that the link between socio‐economic status and academic achievement at age 7 is not explained by parenting behaviours (Hartas, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref79">30</reflink>] ; Sullivan, Ketende, & Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref80">64</reflink>] ). However, this apparent contrast in results may reflect methodological differences between the two studies. In particular, as well as involving a much bigger and more representative sample, the MCS included detailed measures of parental education and income that were not available in the current study. One obvious possibility is that the BESSI Family Support subscale captures the effects of these omitted variables. Our results therefore require replication within a study that includes wider and more detailed measures of socio‐economic status than simple eligibility for free school meals (or pupil premium). Any causal conclusions also require direct testing, for example, within an intervention study. In addition, future research should investigate links between Family Support ratings and child outcomes beyond the transition to school: The oldest children in our study were just 5.5 years old, whereas those in the MCS were aged 7. This additional period of schooling may well attenuate the association between family support and child adjustment and development.</p> <p>It is also worth noting that the MCS relied on parental self‐report to assess family support, raising the possibility (noted by Hartas, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref81">30</reflink>] ) that parental ratings of the warmth of their relationships with their children (indexed by three items focusing on the frequency of displays of affection, time spent listening, and doing things with child and overall closeness of the relationship) were affected by demand characteristics. The difference between what parents say and what parents do is well recognized. In a review of the field, Zaslow et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref82">75</reflink>] ) reported that direct observations of parenting yielded effect sizes that were twice as large as self‐report measures. Thus, our use of teachers as informants may have contributed to the between‐study contrast in results. In addition, whereas the MCS analyses focused on academic outcomes and adopted a categorical approach in their analyses, our analyses adopted continuous scales to index variation in Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, and Daily Living Skills. This broader approach and adoption of continuous rather than categorical variables may also have contributed to the differing results from the two studies.</p> <p>Note, however, that regardless of the extent to which methodological differences ‘explain’ the contrasting findings, our findings should not be used to recast problems of inequality as a matter of parental responsibility (Hartas, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref83">30</reflink>] ). Other studies have also reported parenting as a key mediator of associations between poverty and poor child outcomes (e.g., Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref84">19</reflink>] ), but evidence regarding mediators should not detract from efforts to reduce inequality to give all children a fair start in life. Our goal in constructing the BESSI was that it would help educational professionals support all children (regardless of family background) who display difficulties during the transition to school or nursery. In the remainder of this discussion, we organize our points around features of the BESSI that may be valuable in this endeavour.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-21">The BESSI is a useful tool for creating a dialogue between research and practice</hd> <p>One unexpected finding came from our initial comparisons of competing measurement models for the BESSI, which revealed a strong overlap between items selected to measure self‐regulation (e.g., ‘has trouble sitting still) versus social skills (e.g., ‘usually happy to share’). These items loaded together onto a single latent factor (i.e., Behavioural Adjustment), a finding that is open to two competing interpretations. One possibility is that among very young children, there is such a close interplay between self‐regulation and successful adjustment to the social demands of the classroom that these items are genuinely inextricably intertwined, even though they become more differentiated in older children. This proposal is akin to the view within neuropsychology that development is characterized by a progressive modularization of cognitive functions (e.g., Karmiloff‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>] ). Another possibility is that, to adopt a phrase from Shonkoff and Bales ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>] ), self‐regulation in the early years represents a ‘cognitive hole’. That is, unlike research into language and linguistic environments, whose importance is widely recognized by teachers, research evidence highlighting the importance of early self‐regulation has yet to be effectively disseminated beyond academic circles in the United Kingdom. Both in its brevity and through its use of everyday examples of self‐regulation in young children, the BESSI provides a simple tool that may be valuable in establishing a dialogue between researchers, teachers, and parents to communicate the importance of self‐regulation for children's long‐term adjustment (McClelland, Acock, Piccinin, Rhea, & Stallings, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>] ; Moffitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref88">49</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-22">The BESSI permits the assessment of family influences on school readiness</hd> <p>An important strength of the current study lies in its extension of the conceptual scope of existing measures through the assessment of family support as well as child skills. Underscoring the value of this approach, the elevated levels of problems among children from low‐income families in our sample were explained by a group difference in family support, highlighting the need for family‐based interventions. A related finding to emerge from the data on this subscale was that children with older siblings showed reduced family support (as indicated by higher ratings on this scale). This suggests that policymakers should recognize the additional challenges that come with caring for more than one child and develop intervention schemes that provide families with more sustained support. For example, nurseries and schools could provide parent–toddler groups for younger siblings. The BESSI could prove useful in evaluating the impact of this kind of intervention upon younger siblings' school readiness. Likewise, future research might help to elucidate the diverse ways in which families support children's transition to school. For example, Puccioni ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref89">56</reflink>] ) showed that parental beliefs about school readiness predict gains in achievement and this effect was mediated by parental practices.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-23">The BESSI is sensitive to gender contrasts in children's adjustment to nursery and school</hd> <p>Strikingly, our findings revealed that boys were more likely than girls to display problems on 20 of the 30 BESSI items. To assess whether these contrasts might simply reflect an ‘eye‐of‐the‐beholder effect’, we examined whether teachers’ ratings for boys and girls showed measurement invariance. Our results showed no reduction in model fit when the factor structure, item loadings, and the factor variances of the three child factors were constrained to equality for boys and girls, indicating that teachers were consistent in how they rated boys’ and girls’ behaviour and ability. This demonstration of measurement invariance and significant gender contrasts in the child‐focused factors of the BESSI indicates that young boys and girls show a genuine difference in their likelihood of experiencing problems in meeting the social, academic, and practical demands of life at nursery or school. In addition, although gender differences on each of the three child latent factors of the BESSI remained significant when the effects of family support were controlled, it is worth noting that the data from our multilevel SEM (in which effects of between‐teacher differences were controlled) showed that boys received less family support than girls, with a particularly clear gender difference for one item – ‘talks about fun activities at home’. Interestingly, this item correlated with all the Language and Cognition items, mean r = .56, range = .46 to.61. In comparison, the item about reading at home showed more modest correlations, mean r = .35, range = .21 to.50 (see Table S1). The predictive utility of teachers’ ratings of fun at home is an intriguing finding, which we are currently investigating through detailed video‐based coding of parents’ interactions with their preschoolers. Given that many parents lack confidence or interest in reading, the potential importance of family fun as a key ingredient for school success may be valuable in engaging all parents in supporting their children's academic achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-24">Limitations</hd> <p>A number of caveats also deserve note. In particular, it is not yet clear how well the BESSI works at an individual level. In particular, in a recent evaluation of the convergent and divergent validity of the EDI, Hymel, LeMare, and McKee ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref90">33</reflink>] ) concluded that the EDI is more appropriate for deriving inferences at higher aggregate levels (e.g., community or region) than for drawing conclusions about individual children. One important future step is to establish whether BESSI ratings accord with more detailed assessments of individual children. That said, the brevity and relative simplicity of the BESSI (for which, unlike the EDI, all items are rated in the same way) may help achieve consistent results across different informants. Indeed, our analyses adopted a multilevel approach, which accounted for rater effects. Note that given the wide age range in this sample, these reflect differences both between teachers and between age groups. We are currently gathering new data to examine the sensitivity and specificity with which BESSI ratings allow one to identify children with special educational needs (SEN). This work will provide a first step towards evaluating the utility of the BESSI as an instrument for screening individual children.</p> <p>Further work involving a greater number of children from ethnic minorities is also needed to assess family influences on children's adjustment and developing abilities more broadly. The ethnic homogeneity in the current study precluded detailed comparisons of school readiness among children from different ethnic backgrounds, yet previous research suggests variation in children's outcomes between different ethnic minority groups. In contrast to research findings from the USA, in which children from ethnic minorities are at increased risk of poverty (e.g., U. S. Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref91">66</reflink>] ), recent studies of British children indicate better adjustment and achievement among some minority groups – most notably British Indian children (Goodman, Patel, & Leon, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref92">24</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref93">25</reflink>] ; Rothon, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref94">57</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-25">Conclusions</hd> <p>In sum, this study contributes to the ongoing debate about school readiness in several ways. First, from a cost‐benefit perspective, the brevity and reliability (both internal consistency and test–retest stability) of the BESSI greatly enhances the feasibility of its use at a population level as a screen to facilitate efficient targeting of resources. Second, the BESSI appears to be developmentally appropriate across a relatively wide age range (from 2.5 to 5.5 years). Third, teacher ratings on the BESSI appear sensitive to contrasts between children from low‐income families and their more affluent peers, not only in adjustment and ability but also family support. Fourth, to our knowledge, this is the first study to report reduced family support for young children with older siblings – a finding that deserves further investigation to ensure that all children receive the help they need in making a successful transition to school. Fifth, all four subscales of the BESSI show clear gender differences, providing a useful starting point for future longitudinal research to investigate the origins, persistence, and outcomes of these gender differences in more detail. Together, these findings support the construct validity of the BESSI, in that the predictors of scores on each latent factor confirmed hypotheses motivated by the existing literature on school readiness. However, further work is needed to establish its suitability for other samples (e.g., children from diverse ethnic minorities) and for evaluating the effectiveness of preschool interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0108813927-26">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research was funded by the Westminster Foundation and the Foundation Years Trust. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the teachers and nursery staff who took part in this study. This study was funded by the Westminster Foundation (Dr Daly), the University of Cambridge Isaac Newton Trust (Dr Devine), and the Foundation Years Trust (Ms Naomi White & Ms Sarah Foley).</p> <ref id="AN0108813927-27"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Achenbach, T. ( 1991 ). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT : University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Acock, A. C. ( 2005 ). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012 – 1028. doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐3737.2005.00191.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Allen, G. ( 2011 ). Early intervention: The next steps. An independent report to her Majesty's government. London, UK : Cabinet Office. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-intervention-the-next-steps-2">http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-intervention-the-next-steps-2</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Sroufe, L. A. ( 2005 ). When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 46, 235 – 245. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‐7610.2004.00351.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Attride‐Stirling, J., Davis, H., Day, C., & Sclare, I. ( 2001 ). Someone to talk to who'll listen: Addressing the psychosocial needs of children and families. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 171 – 191. doi: 10.1002/casp.613 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Barbarin, O. A., Early, D., Clifford, R., Bryant, D., Frome, P., Burchinal, M., … Pianta, R. ( 2008 ). Parental conceptions of school readiness: Relation to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and children's skills. Early Education and Development, 19, 671 – 701. doi: 10.1080/10409280802375257 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref54" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Berglund, E., Eriksson, M., & Westerlund, M. ( 2005 ). Communicative skills in relation to gender, birth order, childcare and socioeconomic status in 18‐month‐old children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 485 – 491. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9450.2005.00480.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Bierman, K., Domitrovich, C., Nix, R., Gest, S., Welsh, J., Greenberg, M., … Gill, S. ( 2008 ). Promoting academic and social‐emotional school readiness: The head start REDI program. Child Development, 79, 1802 – 1817. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2008.01227.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref34" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. ( 2005 ). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America. A report supported by the Sutton Trust: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref11" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Brinkman, S. A., Gialamas, A., Rahman, A., Mittinty, M. N., Gregory, T. A., Silburn, S., … Lynch, J. W. ( 2012 ). Jurisdictional, socioeconomic and gender inequalities in child health and development: Analysis of a national census of 5‐year‐olds in Australia. BMJ Open, 2. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen‐2012‐001075 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref40" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Brooks‐Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, J. ( 1997 ). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New York, NY : Russell Sage. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref72" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Brown, T. ( 2006 ). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research ( 1st ed. ). New York, NY : The Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref74" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Byrne, B. ( 2012 ). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref28" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Bywater, T. J. ( 2012 ). Perspectives on the Incredible Years programme: Psychological management of conduct disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 201, 85 – 87. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.107920 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref50" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Carroll, J. M., Maughan, B., Goodman, R., & Meltzer, H. ( 2005 ). Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: Evidence for comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 46, 524 – 532. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‐7610.2004.00366.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref19" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D. M., … Barbarin, O. A. ( 2010 ). Children's classroom engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development, 81, 1534 – 1549. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01490.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref12" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Curtin, M., Baker, D., Staines, A., & Perry, I. J. ( 2014 ). Are the special educational needs of children in their first year in primary school in Ireland being identified: A cross‐sectional study. BMC Pediatrics, 14, 52. doi: 10.1186/1471‐2431‐14‐52 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref53" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>De Los Reyes, A., Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Wakschlag, L. S. ( 2009 ). Linking informant discrepancies to observed variations in young children's disruptive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 637 – 642. doi: 10.1007/s10802‐009‐9307‐3 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref84" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Dodge, K., Pettit, G., & Bates, J. ( 1994 ). Socialization mediators of the relation between socio‐economic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649 – 665. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.1994.tb00774.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref35" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Dorling, D. ( 2012 ). Editorial – Inequality and injustice: Some news from Britain. Urban Geography, 33, 621 – 629. doi: 10.2747/0272‐3638.33.5.621 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref36" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Engle, P. L., & Black, M. M. ( 2008 ). The effect of poverty on child development and educational outcomes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136, 243 – 256. doi: 10.1196/annals.1425.023 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref55" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. ( 1994 ). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, v – 173. doi: 10.2307/1166093 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref22" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Goodman, R. ( 1997 ). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581 – 586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‐7610.1997.tb01545.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref92" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Goodman, A., Patel, V., & Leon, D. A. ( 2008 ). Child mental health differences amongst ethnic groups in Britain: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 8. doi: 10.1186/1471‐2458‐8‐258 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref93" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Goodman, A., Patel, V., & Leon, D. ( 2010 ). Why do British Indian children have an apparent mental health advantage? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 51, 1171 – 1183. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‐7610.2010.02260.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref24" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Griffiths, L. J., Dezateux, C., & Hill, A. ( 2011 ). Is obesity associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children? Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6, e423 – e432. doi: 10.3109/17477166.2010.526221 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref13" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Hagquist, C., & Hellström, L. ( 2014 ). The psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument: A Rasch analysis based on Swedish pilot data. Social Indicators Research, 117, 301 – 317. doi: 10.1007/s11205‐013‐0344‐5 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref46" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Hammer, C. S., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. ( 2010 ). The language and literacy development of head start children: A study using the family and child experiences survey database. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 70 – 83. doi: 10.1044/0161‐1461 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref42" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Hartas, D. ( 2011 ). Families' social backgrounds matter: Socio‐economic factors, home learning and young children's language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 893 – 914. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2010.506945 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref79" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Hartas, D. ( 2015 ). Parenting for social mobility? Home learning, parental warmth, class and educational outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, 30, 21 – 38. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2014.893016 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref18" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>High, P., Donoghue, E., English, K., Fussell, J., Jaudes, P., Jones, V., … Guinn‐Jones, M. ( 2008 ). School readiness. Pediatrics, 121, e1008 – e1015. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008‐0079 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref57" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Hoff‐Ginsberg, E. ( 1998 ). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children's language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 603 – 629. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400010389 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref90" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Hymel, S., LeMare, L., & McKee, W. ( 2011 ). The Early Development Instrument: An examination of convergent and discriminant validity. Social Indicators Research, 103, 267 – 282. doi: 10.1007/s11205‐011‐9845‐2 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref68" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Iniesta‐Martinez, S., & Evans, H. ( 2012 ). Pupils not claiming free school meals. London, UK : Department for Education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupils-not-claiming-free-school-meals">http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupils-not-claiming-free-school-meals</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref14" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Ip, P., Li, S. L., Rao, N., Ng, S. S. N., Lau, W. W. S., & Chow, C. B. ( 2013 ). Validation study of the Chinese Early Development Instrument (CEDI). BMC Pediatrics, 13. doi: 10.1186/1471‐2431‐13‐146 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref15" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Janus, M., Brinkman, S. A., & Duku, E. K. ( 2011 ). Validity and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument in Canada, Australia, United States, and Jamaica. Social Indicators Research, 103, 283 – 297. doi: 10.1007/s11205‐011‐9846‐1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref9" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Janus, M., & Offord, D. R. ( 2007 ). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children's school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 39, 1 – 22. doi: 10.1037/cjbs2007001 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref27" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Karmiloff‐Smith, A. ( 1998 ). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 389 – 398. doi: 10.1016/S1364‐6613(98)01230‐3 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref4" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Keating, D. P., & Hertzmann, C. ( 1999 ). Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological and educational dynamics. New York, NY : The Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref64" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. ( 1979 ). Self‐control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 1020 – 1029. doi: 10.1037/0022‐006X.47.6.1020 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref51" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Kessler, R. C., Foster, C. L., Saunders, W. B., & Stang, P. E. ( 1995 ). Social consequences of psychiatric disorders, I: Educational attainment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1026 – 1032. doi: 10.1176/ajp.155.8.1092 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref73" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Kline, R. ( 2011 ). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (methodology in the social sciences) ( 3rd ed. ). New York, NY : Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref39" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Korenman, S., Miller, J. E., & Sjaastad, J. E. ( 1995 ). Long‐term poverty and child development in the United States: Results from the NLSY. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 127 – 155. doi: 10.1016/0190‐7409(95)00006‐X </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref6" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Lin, H. L., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J. ( 2003 ). Kindergarten teachers' views of children's readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 225 – 237. doi: 10.1016/S0885‐2006(03)00028‐0 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref47" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Logan, S., & Johnston, R. ( 2009 ). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 199 – 214. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2008.01389.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref41" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Maughan, B. ( 2001 ). Conduct disorder in context. In J. Hill & B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct disorders in childhood & adolescence (pp. 169 – 201 ). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref87" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., & Stallings, M. C. ( 2013 ). Relations between preschool attention span‐persistence and age 25 educational outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 314 – 324. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref37" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>McLoyd, V. ( 1998 ). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185 – 204. doi: 10.1037/0003‐066X.53.2.185 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref88" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Moffitt, T., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. ( 2011 ). A gradient of childhood self‐control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2693 – 2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref43" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Moss, E., & St‐Laurent, D. ( 2001 ). Attachment at school age and academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 37, 863 – 874. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.37.6.863 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref75" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Muthén, B. ( 1997 ). Latent variable modeling with longitudinal and multilevel data. In A. Raftery (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 453 – 480 ). Boston, MA : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref71" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. ( 2011 ). Mplus user's guide ( 6th ed. ). Los Angeles, CA : Muthén & Muthén. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref25" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>O'Connor, T. G., Heron, J., Golding, J., Beveridge, M., & Glover, V. ( 2002 ). Maternal antenatal anxiety and children's behavioral/emotional problems at 4 years. Report from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 502 – 508. doi: 10.1192/bjp.180.6.502 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref48" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Office of National Statistics ( 1999 ). The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain. Summary report. London, UK : Office of National Statistics. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref49" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Office of National Statistics ( 2004 ). The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain. Summary report. London, UK : Office of National Statistics. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref89" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Puccioni, J. ( 2014 ). Parents' conceptions of school readiness, transition practices, and children's academic achievement trajectories. Journal of Educational Research, 108 ( 2 ), 130 – 147. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.850399 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref94" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Rothon, C. ( 2007 ). Can achievement differentials be explained by social class alone? An examination of minority ethnic educational performance in England and Wales at teh end of compulsory schooling. Ethnicities, 7, 306 – 322. doi: 10.1177/1468796807080231 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib58" idref="ref61" type="bt">58</bibl> <bibtext>Rust, J., & Golombok, S. ( 2009 ). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment ( 3rd ed. ). London, UK : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib59" idref="ref52" type="bt">59</bibl> <bibtext>Rutter, M., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. ( 2003 ). Using sex differences in psychopathology to study causal mechanisms: Unifying issues and research strategies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44, 1092 – 1115. doi: 10.1111/1469‐7610.00194 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib60" idref="ref86" type="bt">60</bibl> <bibtext>Shonkoff, J. P., & Bales, S. N. ( 2011 ). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82, 17 – 32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01538.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib61" idref="ref31" type="bt">61</bibl> <bibtext>Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. ( 2009 ). Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: Building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, 2252 – 2259. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.754 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib62" idref="ref63" type="bt">62</bibl> <bibtext>Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. ( 1984 ). Vineland adaptive behavior scale (survey form). Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Survey. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib63" idref="ref21" type="bt">63</bibl> <bibtext>Stansfeld, S. A., Rasul, F. R., Head, J., & Singleton, N. ( 2011 ). Occupation and mental health in a national UK survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 101 – 110. doi: 10.1007/s00127‐009‐0173‐7 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib64" idref="ref80" type="bt">64</bibl> <bibtext>Sullivan, A., Ketende, S., & Joshi, H. ( 2013 ). Social class and inequalities in early cognitive scores. Sociology, 47, 1187 – 1206. doi: 10.1177/0038038512461861 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib65" idref="ref56" type="bt">65</bibl> <bibtext>Topping, K., Dekhinet, R., & Zeedyk, S. ( 2013 ). Parent–infant interaction and children's language development. Educational Psychology, 33, 391 – 426. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2012.744159 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib66" idref="ref91" type="bt">66</bibl> <bibtext>U. S. Census Bureau. ( 2011 ). Child poverty in the United States 2009 and 2010: Selected Race Groups and Hispanic Origin. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-05.pdf">http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-05.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib67" idref="ref8" type="bt">67</bibl> <bibtext>U. S. Department of Education. ( 2001 ). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html">http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib68" idref="ref32" type="bt">68</bibl> <bibtext>Ungar, M. ( 2015 ). Practitioner review: Diagnosing childhood resilience – A systemic approach to the diagnosis of adaptation in adverse social and physical ecologies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 56, 4 – 17. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12306 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib69" idref="ref33" type="bt">69</bibl> <bibtext>Wessells, M. G. ( 2015 ). Commentary: A social environment approach to promotive and protective practice in childhood resilience – Reflections on Ungar (2014). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 56, 18 – 20. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12367 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib70" idref="ref44" type="bt">70</bibl> <bibtext>West, K. K., Mathews, B. L., & Kerns, K. A. ( 2013 ). Mother–child attachment and cognitive performance in middle childhood: An examination of mediating mechanisms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 259 – 270. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.005 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib71" idref="ref20" type="bt">71</bibl> <bibtext>Williford, A. P., Maier, M. F., Downer, J. T., Pianta, R. C., & Howes, C. ( 2013 ). Understanding how children's engagement and teachers’ interactions combine to predict school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 299 – 309. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2013.05.002 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib72" idref="ref26" type="bt">72</bibl> <bibtext>Wilson, P., Bradshaw, P., Tipping, S., Henderson, M., Der, G., & Minnis, H. ( 2013 ). What predicts persistent early conduct problems? Evidence from the Growing Up in Scotland cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67, 76 – 80. doi: 10.1136/jech‐2011‐200856 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib73" idref="ref67" type="bt">73</bibl> <bibtext>Wirral Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. ( 2014 ). Child Poverty. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.info.wirral.nhs.uk/document%5fuploads/JSNA2014/WirralJSNAChildPovertyFINAL09072014.pdf">http://www.info.wirral.nhs.uk/document%5fuploads/JSNA2014/WirralJSNAChildPovertyFINAL09072014.pdf</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib74" idref="ref16" type="bt">74</bibl> <bibtext>Woolfson, L. M., Geddes, R., McNicol, S., Booth, J. N., & Frank, J. ( 2013 ). A cross‐sectional pilot study of the Scottish early development instrument: A tool for addressing inequality. BMC Public Health, 13. doi: 10.1186/1471‐2458‐13‐1187 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib75" idref="ref82" type="bt">75</bibl> <bibtext>Zaslow, M., Gallagher, M., Hair, E., Egeland, B., Weinfield, N., Ogawa, J., … De Temple, J. ( 2006 ). Longitudinal prediction of child outcomes from differing measures of parenting in a low‐income sample. Developmental Psychology, 42, 27 – 37. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.42.1.27 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Study procedures for developing and validating the Brief Early Skills and Support Index ( BESSI ).</p> <p>Graph: Panel A: Correlates of ratings on the four factors of the Brief Early Skills and Support Index ( BESSI ). Panel B: Correlates of ratings on three child factors of the BESSI.</p> <p>Graph: Table S1. Tetrachoric correlation matrix (within‐level correlations below diagonal/between level correlations above diagonal).</p> <aug> <p>By Claire Hughes; Irenee Daly; Sarah Foley; Naomi White and Rory T. Devine</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1071450
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Measuring the Foundations of School Readiness: Introducing a New Questionnaire for Teachers--The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hughes%2C+Claire%22">Hughes, Claire</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daly%2C+Irenee%22">Daly, Irenee</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Foley%2C+Sarah%22">Foley, Sarah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22White%2C+Naomi%22">White, Naomi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Devine%2C+Rory+T%2E%22">Devine, Rory T.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. Sep 2015 85(3):332-356.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Readiness%22">School Readiness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Structural+Equation+Models%22">Structural Equation Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Economically+Disadvantaged%22">Economically Disadvantaged</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Daily+Living+Skills%22">Daily Living Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12076
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Early work on school readiness focused on academic skills. Recent research highlights the value of also including both children's social and behavioural competencies and family support. Aims: Reflecting this broader approach, this study aimed to develop a new and brief questionnaire for teachers: The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI). Sample: The main sample, recruited from the north-west of England, included 1,456 children (49% male), aged 2.5 to 5.5 years. A second sample consisting of 258 children (44% male) aged 3 to 5.5 years was recruited to assess the test-retest reliability of the BESSI across a 1-month interval. Methods: Following development and pilot work with early years teachers, a streamlined (30 items) version of the BESSI was sent to 98 teachers and nursery staff, who rated the children in their class. Results: The best-fitting model included four latent factors: Three child factors (Behavioural Adjustment, Language and Cognition, and Daily Living Skills) and one Family Support factor. The three child factors exhibited measurement invariance across gender. All four factors showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Structural equation modelling showed that (1) boys had more problems than girls on all three child factors; (2) older children showed better Language and Cognition and Daily Living Skills than younger children; and (3) children eligible for free school meals (an index of financial hardship) had more problems on all four latent factors. Family Support latent scores predicted all three child latent factors and accounted for their correlation with financial hardship. Conclusions: The BESSI is a promising brief teacher-report screening tool that appears suitable for children aged 2.5 to 5.5 and provides a broader perspective upon school readiness than previous measures.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1071450
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1071450
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12076
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 332
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Readiness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Structural Equation Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Economically Disadvantaged
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Daily Living Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Measuring the Foundations of School Readiness: Introducing a New Questionnaire for Teachers--The Brief Early Skills and Support Index (BESSI)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hughes, Claire
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daly, Irenee
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Foley, Sarah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: White, Naomi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Devine, Rory T.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 85
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1