Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1007/s10648-025-09987-1
Miao Li, Shuai Zhang, Yuting Liu, Catherine Snow, Huan Zhang, Bing Han
{"title":"Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners","authors":"Miao Li, Shuai Zhang, Yuting Liu, Catherine Snow, Huan Zhang, Bing Han","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-09987-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Students with or at risk of reading difficulties (RD) benefit from accurate early identification and intervention. Previous research has employed various decoding measures to screen students for RD, but the criteria for identification have been inconsistent. Assessing students with RD is especially challenging in English Language Learners (ELLs), as vocabulary deficits can impact decoding. Additionally, few research syntheses have examined whether researchers use different measures to screen ELLs and EL1s for RD, and whether these differences result in distinct decoding profiles between ELLs with RD and EL1s with RD. To address these gaps, this study uses a meta-analysis to examine the decoding measures used in RD assessments and whether outcomes differ for ELLs and EL1s. The findings show that real word reading assessments identify students with more pronounced decoding deficits than nonword reading assessments. Despite the use of different RD screening measures for ELLs and EL1s, the gap between ELLs with and without RD was similar to that between EL1s with and without RD. These results suggest that real word-reliant measures, which are influenced by word knowledge, provide a more comprehensive assessment of RD than nonword-reliant measures for both ELLs and EL1s. We encourage future researchers to use consistent decoding measures when screening RD in both populations, to maximize comparability of findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09987-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Students with or at risk of reading difficulties (RD) benefit from accurate early identification and intervention. Previous research has employed various decoding measures to screen students for RD, but the criteria for identification have been inconsistent. Assessing students with RD is especially challenging in English Language Learners (ELLs), as vocabulary deficits can impact decoding. Additionally, few research syntheses have examined whether researchers use different measures to screen ELLs and EL1s for RD, and whether these differences result in distinct decoding profiles between ELLs with RD and EL1s with RD. To address these gaps, this study uses a meta-analysis to examine the decoding measures used in RD assessments and whether outcomes differ for ELLs and EL1s. The findings show that real word reading assessments identify students with more pronounced decoding deficits than nonword reading assessments. Despite the use of different RD screening measures for ELLs and EL1s, the gap between ELLs with and without RD was similar to that between EL1s with and without RD. These results suggest that real word-reliant measures, which are influenced by word knowledge, provide a more comprehensive assessment of RD than nonword-reliant measures for both ELLs and EL1s. We encourage future researchers to use consistent decoding measures when screening RD in both populations, to maximize comparability of findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners Interventions to Teacher Well-Being and Burnout A Scoping Review Examining the Effects of Family-Implemented Literacy Interventions for School-Aged Children: A Meta-Analysis The Virtual Reality in Your Head: How Immersion and Mental Imagery Are Connected to Knowledge Retention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1