Universal Screening with aimswebPlus Reading in Middle School

IF 1.5 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading & Writing Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-06-28 DOI:10.1080/10573569.2022.2084657
David A. Klingbeil, David J. Osman, Ethan R. Van Norman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Jessica S. Kim, Madeline C. Schmitt, Alexander D. Latham
{"title":"Universal Screening with aimswebPlus Reading in Middle School","authors":"David A. Klingbeil, David J. Osman, Ethan R. Van Norman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Jessica S. Kim, Madeline C. Schmitt, Alexander D. Latham","doi":"10.1080/10573569.2022.2084657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Accurate and efficient universal screening is a foundational component of multi-tiered systems of support for reading. By the time students reach middle school, educators often have extant data available to inform screening decisions. Therefore, the decision to collect additional data to inform screening should be considered carefully. The classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading, a newly updated version of a popular suite of screening tools, has not been independently examined in middle school since its release. We used districtwide data from a midsize city in Texas to retrospectively examine the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading composite scores from the fall and winter benchmarking periods. The criterion measure was the annual statewide reading test administered in spring. To provide a comparison for the aimswebPlus results, we also evaluated the accuracy of screening decisions made based on prior year statewide reading test scores. Decisions made based on the aimswebPlus “default” cut-scores resulted in unacceptable sensitivity for universal screening. Following the aimswebPlus recommended method to establish local cut-scores improved the sensitivity of decisions in each grade and benchmarking season but the sensitivity values still fell below recommendations for minimally acceptable sensitivity. In comparison, decisions made based on prior year state test scores demonstrated adequate sensitivity and specificity in Grades 7 and 8. Directions for future research and recommendations for practice are discussed within the context of study limitations.","PeriodicalId":51619,"journal":{"name":"Reading & Writing Quarterly","volume":"39 1","pages":"192 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading & Writing Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2022.2084657","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","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

Abstract Accurate and efficient universal screening is a foundational component of multi-tiered systems of support for reading. By the time students reach middle school, educators often have extant data available to inform screening decisions. Therefore, the decision to collect additional data to inform screening should be considered carefully. The classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading, a newly updated version of a popular suite of screening tools, has not been independently examined in middle school since its release. We used districtwide data from a midsize city in Texas to retrospectively examine the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading composite scores from the fall and winter benchmarking periods. The criterion measure was the annual statewide reading test administered in spring. To provide a comparison for the aimswebPlus results, we also evaluated the accuracy of screening decisions made based on prior year statewide reading test scores. Decisions made based on the aimswebPlus “default” cut-scores resulted in unacceptable sensitivity for universal screening. Following the aimswebPlus recommended method to establish local cut-scores improved the sensitivity of decisions in each grade and benchmarking season but the sensitivity values still fell below recommendations for minimally acceptable sensitivity. In comparison, decisions made based on prior year state test scores demonstrated adequate sensitivity and specificity in Grades 7 and 8. Directions for future research and recommendations for practice are discussed within the context of study limitations.
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
aimswebPlus在中学阅读中的普遍筛选
准确、高效的普遍筛选是多层次阅读支持系统的基础组成部分。当学生进入中学时,教育工作者通常有现有的数据来指导筛选决策。因此,在决定是否收集额外的数据来为筛查提供信息时,应慎重考虑。aimswebPlus阅读分类的准确性是一套流行的筛选工具的最新更新版本,自发布以来,它还没有在中学中进行过独立的测试。我们使用了德克萨斯州一个中等城市的全区数据,回顾性地检查了秋季和冬季基准期aimswebPlus阅读综合分数的分类准确性。标准措施是在春季进行的年度全州阅读测试。为了对aimswebPlus结果进行比较,我们还评估了基于前一年全州阅读测试成绩做出的筛选决策的准确性。根据aimswebPlus的“默认”分值做出的决定导致了对普遍筛查的不可接受的敏感性。采用aimswebPlus推荐的方法建立局部分值提高了每个等级和基准季节决策的灵敏度,但灵敏度值仍低于最低可接受灵敏度的建议值。相比之下,根据前一年的州考试成绩做出的决定在7年级和8年级表现出足够的敏感性和特异性。在研究局限性的背景下,讨论了未来研究的方向和实践建议。
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
4.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Argumentative Writing for Students With Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classes: A Pilot Study Online Intervention to Prevent Summer Learning Loss For Struggling First Grade Writers Can Artificial Intelligence Identify Reading Fluency and Level? Comparison of Human and Machine Performance Exploring Relations between Teachers’ Language- and Code-Based Writing Supports to Early Literacy and Vocabulary Learning in Children with Language Vulnerabilities The Technical Adequacy of Coding Procedures for Retell Measures in Elementary School Students with Dyslexia
×
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