Single Measure and Gated Screening Approaches for Identifying Students At-Risk for Academic Problems: Implications for Sensitivity and Specificity

Ethan R. Van Norman, Peter M. Nelson, David A. Klingbeil
{"title":"Single Measure and Gated Screening Approaches for Identifying Students At-Risk for Academic Problems: Implications for Sensitivity and Specificity","authors":"Ethan R. Van Norman, Peter M. Nelson, David A. Klingbeil","doi":"10.1037/spq0000177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educators need recommendations to improve screening practices without limiting students’ instructional opportunities. Repurposing previous years’ state test scores has shown promise in identifying at-risk students within multitiered systems of support. However, researchers have not directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of previous years’ state test scores with data collected during fall screening periods to identify at-risk students. In addition, the benefit of using previous state test scores in conjunction with data from a separate measure to identify at-risk students has not been explored. The diagnostic accuracy of 3 types of screening approaches were tested to predict proficiency on end-of-year high-stakes assessments: state test data obtained during the previous year, data from a different measure administered in the fall, and both measures combined (i.e., a gated model). Extant reading and math data (N = 2,996) from 10 schools in the Midwest were analyzed. When used alone, both measures yielded similar sensitivity and specificity values. The gated model yielded superior specificity values compared with using either measure alone, at the expense of sensitivity. Implications, limitations, and ideas for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48005,"journal":{"name":"SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/spq0000177","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Educators need recommendations to improve screening practices without limiting students’ instructional opportunities. Repurposing previous years’ state test scores has shown promise in identifying at-risk students within multitiered systems of support. However, researchers have not directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of previous years’ state test scores with data collected during fall screening periods to identify at-risk students. In addition, the benefit of using previous state test scores in conjunction with data from a separate measure to identify at-risk students has not been explored. The diagnostic accuracy of 3 types of screening approaches were tested to predict proficiency on end-of-year high-stakes assessments: state test data obtained during the previous year, data from a different measure administered in the fall, and both measures combined (i.e., a gated model). Extant reading and math data (N = 2,996) from 10 schools in the Midwest were analyzed. When used alone, both measures yielded similar sensitivity and specificity values. The gated model yielded superior specificity values compared with using either measure alone, at the expense of sensitivity. Implications, limitations, and ideas for future research 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
识别有学术问题风险的学生的单一测量和门控筛查方法:对敏感性和特异性的启示
教育工作者需要在不限制学生教学机会的情况下改进筛查实践的建议。重新利用前几年的州考试成绩,有望在多层次的支持系统中识别出有风险的学生。然而,研究人员并没有直接将前几年州考试成绩的诊断准确性与秋季筛查期间收集的数据进行比较,以确定有风险的学生。此外,将以前的州考试成绩与另一项单独措施的数据结合起来识别有风险的学生的好处尚未得到探讨。测试了三种筛查方法的诊断准确性,以预测年终高风险评估的熟练程度:前一年获得的州测试数据,秋季管理的不同测量数据,以及两种测量相结合(即门控模型)。对中西部10所学校现存的阅读和数学数据(N = 2996)进行了分析。单独使用时,两种测量方法产生相似的敏感性和特异性值。与单独使用任何一种测量方法相比,门控模型产生了更好的特异性值,但代价是灵敏度。讨论了未来研究的意义、局限性和思路。
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
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The flagship scholarly journal in the field of school psychology, the journal publishes empirical studies, theoretical analyses, and literature reviews encompassing a full range of methodologies and orientations, including educational, cognitive, social, cognitive behavioral, preventive, dynamic, multicultural, and organizational psychology. Focusing primarily on children, youth, and the adults who serve them, School Psychology Quarterly publishes information pertaining to populations across the life span.
期刊最新文献
Supplemental Material for Cognitive Ability and Math Computation Developmental Relations With Math Problem Solving: An Integrated, Multigroup Approach Supplemental Material for Measuring Teacher Practices and Student Academic Engagement: A Convergent Validity Study Supplemental Material for Influence of Homogeneity of Student Characteristics in a Group-Based Social Competence Intervention Observer and Student Ratings of the Class Environment: A Preliminary Investigation of Convergence Protective Factor Screening for Prevention Practice: Sensitivity and Specificity of the DESSA-Mini
×
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