1. Objectifs

Intentions :
The «first objective of this study was to compare ECD [early childhood development] outcomes among kindergarten-aged children between the metropolitan areas of MTL [Montreal, Canada] and MEL [Melbourne, Australia], as measured by a series of EDI [Early Development Instrument] indicators. The second objective was to contrast disparities across demographic and socioeconomic groups between both cities.» (p. 3)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«It was anticipated that identification of differences could provide a backdrop for further comparisons which in turn could suggest policy possibilities for universal and targeted programs and policies for young children.» (p. 3)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’échantillon montréalais est composé de 29 391 enfants (49,8% filles). L’échantillon de Melbourne est composé de 51 009 enfants (50,3% filles),

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«Overall, the proportion of children developmentally vulnerable in at least one domain [was 26.8%] in MTL and 19.2% [in MEL]. More specifically, the EMOT [Emotional Maturity] domain and the COG [Language/Cognitive Development] domain were those where the largest differences were found between the two metropolitan areas, and only the PHYS [Physical Health/Well-Being] domain showed no statistically significant differences. In terms of inequalities, it was found that the risk of being developmentally vulnerable as a function of home language and area-level deprivation subgroups were significantly smaller in MTL than in MEL.» (p. 10) The authors put «these findings into perspective with some noteworthy child programs and family policies implemented in each jurisdiction. […] To explain the overall better results in MEL [compared to MTL, they hypothesize] that the Victoria ‘10 key ages and stages’ visits with a Maternal and Child Health nurse may have been beneficial for improving ECD outcomes. [In Montreal and in Quebec, there] is no such structured preventive programs for young children. Access to periodic health and development assessments and to counseling relies solely on primary care physicians, for which access can sometimes be difficult […]. The national universal preschool access reform in Australia might also have had a role in explaining MEL’s results […].» (p. 11-12)