Early Prediction of Reading Risk in Fourth Grade: A Combined Latent Class Analysis and Classification Tree Approach

IF 2.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Scientific Studies of Reading Pub Date : 2022-09-20 DOI:10.1080/10888438.2022.2121655
N. Gutiérrez, V. M. Rigobon, Nancy Marencin, Ashley A. Edwards, Laura M. Steacy, D. Compton
{"title":"Early Prediction of Reading Risk in Fourth Grade: A Combined Latent Class Analysis and Classification Tree Approach","authors":"N. Gutiérrez, V. M. Rigobon, Nancy Marencin, Ashley A. Edwards, Laura M. Steacy, D. Compton","doi":"10.1080/10888438.2022.2121655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose Fourth grade typically involves shifting the instruction from learning to read to reading to learn, which can cause students to struggle. However, early reading intervention guided by assessment has demonstrated effectiveness in preventing later reading difficulties (RD). This study presents a classification and regression tree (CART) model predicting fourth-grade reading groups using first-grade measures. Method Students were assessed in first and fourth grade (N = 452). Fourth-grade groups were determined using latent class analysis based on word reading and reading comprehension measures with a cut-point at the 15th percentile. A CART model was trained to determine the best decision rules to classify students at risk of developing later RD and compared to a logistic regression model. Results Important first-grade predictors included a mix of oral language and foundational word-reading skills with final classification accuracy estimates of .90 AUC, .91 sensitivity, and .75 specificity. Conclusion While the CART and logistic regression models’ classification accuracy was similar, CART has the advantage of offering a more intuitive way for practitioners to determine risk. Multivariate screening can be time-consuming, but CART models offer the potential to reduce false positives and guide targeted interventions, leading to better use of school resources.","PeriodicalId":48032,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Studies of Reading","volume":"27 1","pages":"21 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Studies of Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2121655","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose Fourth grade typically involves shifting the instruction from learning to read to reading to learn, which can cause students to struggle. However, early reading intervention guided by assessment has demonstrated effectiveness in preventing later reading difficulties (RD). This study presents a classification and regression tree (CART) model predicting fourth-grade reading groups using first-grade measures. Method Students were assessed in first and fourth grade (N = 452). Fourth-grade groups were determined using latent class analysis based on word reading and reading comprehension measures with a cut-point at the 15th percentile. A CART model was trained to determine the best decision rules to classify students at risk of developing later RD and compared to a logistic regression model. Results Important first-grade predictors included a mix of oral language and foundational word-reading skills with final classification accuracy estimates of .90 AUC, .91 sensitivity, and .75 specificity. Conclusion While the CART and logistic regression models’ classification accuracy was similar, CART has the advantage of offering a more intuitive way for practitioners to determine risk. Multivariate screening can be time-consuming, but CART models offer the potential to reduce false positives and guide targeted interventions, leading to better use of school resources.
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
四年级阅读风险的早期预测:潜在类分析与分类树相结合的方法
四年级的教学通常从“学到读”转变为“读到学”,这可能会让学生感到困惑。然而,以评估为指导的早期阅读干预在预防后期阅读困难(RD)方面已被证明是有效的。本研究提出一个分类回归树(CART)模型,利用一年级的测量方法来预测四年级的阅读小组。方法对一、四年级学生进行评估(N = 452)。使用基于单词阅读和阅读理解测量的潜类分析来确定四年级组,切割点为第15百分位。训练CART模型以确定最佳决策规则,对有发展后期RD风险的学生进行分类,并与逻辑回归模型进行比较。结果重要的一年级预测指标包括口语和基本的单词阅读技能,最终分类准确度估计为0.90 AUC, 0.91敏感性和0.75特异性。结论CART与logistic回归模型的分类准确率相近,CART的优势在于为从业者提供了更直观的风险判断方法。多变量筛查可能很耗时,但CART模型提供了减少误报和指导有针对性干预的潜力,从而更好地利用学校资源。
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
7.20
自引率
2.70%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This journal publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and, occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature, papers focused on theory development, and discussions of social policy issues. Papers range from very basic studies to those whose main thrust is toward educational practice. The journal also includes work on "all aspects of reading and its related areas," a phrase that is sufficiently general to encompass issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, and assessment involving very young children and/or adults.
期刊最新文献
A Multi-Site Study of Student Experiences with Code- and Meaning-Focused Literacy in Preschool-Third Grade Classrooms Intergenerational Effects on Children’s Reading Comprehension in Chinese: Evidence from a 3-Year Longitudinal Study The Science of Teaching Reading is Incomplete without the Science of Writing: A Randomized Control Trial of Integrated Teaching of Reading and Writing Building a Science of Teaching Reading and Vocabulary: Experimental Effects of Structured Supplements for a Read Aloud Lesson on Third Graders’ Domain-Specific Reading Comprehension Preschool Morphological Awareness and Developmental Change in Early Reading Ability
×
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