Development of a predictive risk model for school readiness at age 3 years using the UK Millennium Cohort Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to develop a predictive risk model (PRM) for school readiness measured at age 3 years using perinatal and early infancy data.Design and participantsThis paper describes the development of a PRM. Predictors were identified from the UK Millennium Cohort Study wave 1...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2019-06, Vol.9 (6), p.e024851-e024851
Hauptverfasser: Camacho, Christine, Straatmann, Viviane S, Day, Jennie C, Taylor-Robinson, David
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to develop a predictive risk model (PRM) for school readiness measured at age 3 years using perinatal and early infancy data.Design and participantsThis paper describes the development of a PRM. Predictors were identified from the UK Millennium Cohort Study wave 1 data, collected when participants were 9 months old. The outcome was school readiness at age 3 years, measured by the Bracken School Readiness Assessment. Stepwise selection and dominance analysis were used to specify two models. The models were compared by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).ResultsData were available for 9487 complete cases. At age 3, 11.7% (95% CI 11.0% to 12.3%) of children were not school ready. The variables identified were: parents’ Socio-Economic Classification, child’s ethnicity, maternal education, income band, sex, household number of children, mother’s age, low birth weight, mother’s mental health, infant developmental milestones, breastfeeding, parents’ employment, housing type. A parsimonious model included the first six listed variables (model 2). The AUROC for model 1 was 0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.81) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.79) for model 2. Model 1 resulted in a small improvement in discrimination (IDI=1.3%, p
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024851