Teleassessment can overestimate the risk of learning disability in first and second grade of primary school.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS Italian Journal of Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4
Stefania Fontolan, Sandro Franceschini, Marisa Bortolozzo, Linda Greta Dui, Simona Ferrante, Cristiano Termine
{"title":"Teleassessment can overestimate the risk of learning disability in first and second grade of primary school.","authors":"Stefania Fontolan, Sandro Franceschini, Marisa Bortolozzo, Linda Greta Dui, Simona Ferrante, Cristiano Termine","doi":"10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early administration of reading, writing and math standardised tests allows us to assess the risk of developing a learning disorder and to plan a specific intervention. The ease of access to technological tools and past pandemic restrictions have led to the abandonment of face-to-face assessment in favour of teleassessment methods. Although these kinds of assessments sometimes seem comparable in the literature, their equivalence is not clearly defined. The first aim of our research was to test the comparability of the two modalities using a complete battery of neuropsychological tests. Second, we addressed whether the administration order could influence performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a within-subject sample design, we compared face-to-face and teleassessment performance in reading, writing and math tasks in 64 children attending first and second year of primary school.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Teleassessment scores were lower than face-to-face; math tests weighted on difference. Differences were mitigated by previous experience with face-to-face modality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there was considerable overlap between the two administration methods, teleassessment could lead to overestimation of the risk for learning disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":14511,"journal":{"name":"Italian Journal of Pediatrics","volume":"51 1","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11817320/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early administration of reading, writing and math standardised tests allows us to assess the risk of developing a learning disorder and to plan a specific intervention. The ease of access to technological tools and past pandemic restrictions have led to the abandonment of face-to-face assessment in favour of teleassessment methods. Although these kinds of assessments sometimes seem comparable in the literature, their equivalence is not clearly defined. The first aim of our research was to test the comparability of the two modalities using a complete battery of neuropsychological tests. Second, we addressed whether the administration order could influence performance.

Methods: Using a within-subject sample design, we compared face-to-face and teleassessment performance in reading, writing and math tasks in 64 children attending first and second year of primary school.

Results: Teleassessment scores were lower than face-to-face; math tests weighted on difference. Differences were mitigated by previous experience with face-to-face modality.

Conclusions: Although there was considerable overlap between the two administration methods, teleassessment could lead to overestimation of the risk for learning disorders.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
远距评估会高估小学一、二年级学生的学习障碍风险。
背景:阅读、写作和数学标准化测试的早期管理使我们能够评估发展为学习障碍的风险,并计划具体的干预措施。由于易于获得技术工具和过去对大流行病的限制,人们放弃了面对面的评估,转而采用远程评估方法。虽然这些类型的评估有时在文献中似乎具有可比性,但它们的等效性并没有明确定义。我们研究的第一个目的是使用一套完整的神经心理学测试来测试这两种模式的可比性。其次,我们讨论了行政命令是否会影响绩效。方法:采用主题内样本设计,我们比较了64名小学一年级和二年级儿童的阅读、写作和数学任务的面对面和远程评估表现。结果:远程评估得分低于面对面评估;数学考试看重的是差异。以前面对面教学的经验减轻了差异。结论:虽然两种给药方法有相当大的重叠,但远程评估可能导致高估学习障碍的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.90%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Italian Journal of Pediatrics is an open access peer-reviewed journal that includes all aspects of pediatric medicine. The journal also covers health service and public health research that addresses primary care issues. The journal provides a high-quality forum for pediatricians and other healthcare professionals to report and discuss up-to-the-minute research and expert reviews in the field of pediatric medicine. The journal will continue to develop the range of articles published to enable this invaluable resource to stay at the forefront of the field. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, which commenced in 1975 as Rivista Italiana di Pediatria, provides a high-quality forum for pediatricians and other healthcare professionals to report and discuss up-to-the-minute research and expert reviews in the field of pediatric medicine. The journal will continue to develop the range of articles published to enable this invaluable resource to stay at the forefront of the field.
期刊最新文献
Optimizing pediatric vesicoureteral reflux management: a single-center experience with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in reducing radiation exposure and antibiotic use. Women satisfaction with breastfeeding care in maternity hospitals: a survey from Italy. Effects of feeding behavior training on sensory processing and developmental areas in children with cerebral visual impairment: a randomized controlled study. Trends in emergency department utilization by patients with chronic conditions aged 15 and over in a tertiary-care Italian pediatric emergency department (2010-2022). A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of procedural sedation in pediatric emergency rooms.
×
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:604180095
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