A Comparison of Reading Screeners in Kindergarten: The Texas Primary Reading Inventory and Acadience Reading With English Learners and Monolingual English Speakers

IF 0.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION Pub Date : 2022-11-02 DOI:10.1177/15345084221133559
Milena A. Keller-Margulis, M. Matta, Lindsey Landry Pierce, Katherine Zopatti, Erin K. Reid, G. T. Schanding
{"title":"A Comparison of Reading Screeners in Kindergarten: The Texas Primary Reading Inventory and Acadience Reading With English Learners and Monolingual English Speakers","authors":"Milena A. Keller-Margulis, M. Matta, Lindsey Landry Pierce, Katherine Zopatti, Erin K. Reid, G. T. Schanding","doi":"10.1177/15345084221133559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring and identifying risk for reading difficulties at the kindergarten level is necessary for providing intervention as early as possible. The purpose of this study was to examine concurrent validity evidence of two kindergarten reading screeners, Acadience Reading and Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), as well as diagnostic accuracy at different performance levels on the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Reading Cluster and across (N = 96) emergent bilingual and monolingual English learners in kindergarten. Findings indicated moderate correlations between Acadience Reading and TPRI with the WJ IV. Diagnostic accuracy results showed screening measures were inadequate when predicting WJ IV performance above 90 SS (standard score), but results improved for almost all measures and student groups when the threshold for performance was lowered to 80 SS. Acadience Reading Below Benchmark (AR BB) offered the lowest overall accuracy for emerging bilingual (EB) students. Implications for efficient and accurate use of reading screeners in schools are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46264,"journal":{"name":"ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION","volume":"48 1","pages":"127 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221133559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Measuring and identifying risk for reading difficulties at the kindergarten level is necessary for providing intervention as early as possible. The purpose of this study was to examine concurrent validity evidence of two kindergarten reading screeners, Acadience Reading and Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), as well as diagnostic accuracy at different performance levels on the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Reading Cluster and across (N = 96) emergent bilingual and monolingual English learners in kindergarten. Findings indicated moderate correlations between Acadience Reading and TPRI with the WJ IV. Diagnostic accuracy results showed screening measures were inadequate when predicting WJ IV performance above 90 SS (standard score), but results improved for almost all measures and student groups when the threshold for performance was lowered to 80 SS. Acadience Reading Below Benchmark (AR BB) offered the lowest overall accuracy for emerging bilingual (EB) students. Implications for efficient and accurate use of reading screeners in schools are discussed.
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
幼儿园阅读筛选器的比较:德州小学阅读量表与英语学习者与单语英语使用者的学术阅读
在幼儿园阶段测量和识别阅读困难的风险对于尽早提供干预是必要的。本研究的目的是检验两种幼儿园阅读筛选器——学术阅读和德州初级阅读量表(TPRI)的并发效度证据,以及在Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV)阅读聚类和(N = 96)幼儿园新兴双语和单语英语学习者不同表现水平上的诊断准确性。研究结果表明,学术阅读和TPRI与WJ IV之间存在中度相关性。诊断准确性结果显示,在预测WJ IV成绩高于90分(标准分数)时,筛选措施是不充分的,但当表现阈值降低到80分时,几乎所有措施和学生群体的结果都有所改善。学术阅读低于基准(AR BB)为新兴双语(EB)学生提供了最低的总体准确性。讨论了在学校中有效和准确地使用阅读筛选器的意义。
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
ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION
ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Reliability of Ratings of an English Language Arts Curriculum With the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines What Is Important to Measure in Sentence-Level Language Comprehension? Universal Screening for Student Mental Health: Selection of Norming Group Validation of the Youth Internalizing Problem Screener in Singapore Using Empirical Information to Prioritize Early Literacy Assessment and Instruction in Preschool and Kindergarten
×
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