Comparing the Cost–Accuracy Ratios of Multiple Approaches to Reading Screening in Elementary Schools

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Remedial and Special Education Pub Date : 2023-08-25 DOI:10.1177/07419325231190809
Courtenay A. Barrett, L. Johnson, Adrea J. Truckenmiller, A. Vanderheyden
{"title":"Comparing the Cost–Accuracy Ratios of Multiple Approaches to Reading Screening in Elementary Schools","authors":"Courtenay A. Barrett, L. Johnson, Adrea J. Truckenmiller, A. Vanderheyden","doi":"10.1177/07419325231190809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Elementary schools administer reading screeners to identify students in need of remedial instruction. However, the administration of additional assessments comes with a cost. It is unclear the extent to which multiple types of reading screeners warrant the increase in resources that could be used for instruction. This study compared cost–accuracy ratios for three types of reading screeners in Grade 3: curriculum-based measurement (Acadience), computer adaptive assessment (Star), informal reading inventory (Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System), and the cost–accuracy of using all three in conjunction. We used classification and regression tree analysis to identify local cut-scores and identify how measures could be combined to maximize classification accuracy. Results suggested that oral reading fluency score (Acadience) yielded the best cost–accuracy ratio, but the combination of Star and oral reading fluency identified important instructional groups. Cost tables provide additional insight to schools on critical decision points for choosing and implementing reading screeners.","PeriodicalId":48042,"journal":{"name":"Remedial and Special Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Remedial and Special Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231190809","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Elementary schools administer reading screeners to identify students in need of remedial instruction. However, the administration of additional assessments comes with a cost. It is unclear the extent to which multiple types of reading screeners warrant the increase in resources that could be used for instruction. This study compared cost–accuracy ratios for three types of reading screeners in Grade 3: curriculum-based measurement (Acadience), computer adaptive assessment (Star), informal reading inventory (Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System), and the cost–accuracy of using all three in conjunction. We used classification and regression tree analysis to identify local cut-scores and identify how measures could be combined to maximize classification accuracy. Results suggested that oral reading fluency score (Acadience) yielded the best cost–accuracy ratio, but the combination of Star and oral reading fluency identified important instructional groups. Cost tables provide additional insight to schools on critical decision points for choosing and implementing reading screeners.
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
小学阅读筛选多种方法的成本-准确率比较
小学管理阅读筛查,以确定需要补救指导的学生。然而,额外评估的管理是有成本的。目前尚不清楚多种类型的阅读筛查器在多大程度上保证了可用于教学的资源的增加。本研究比较了三年级三种类型的阅读筛查者的成本-准确率:基于课程的测量(Acadience)、计算机自适应评估(Star)、非正式阅读清单(Fountas和Pinnell Benchmark评估系统),以及同时使用这三种方法的成本-准确性。我们使用分类和回归树分析来确定局部切割分数,并确定如何组合度量以最大限度地提高分类精度。结果表明,口语阅读流利度得分(Acadience)产生了最佳的成本-准确率,但Star和口语阅读流利性的组合确定了重要的教学群体。成本表为学校提供了更多关于选择和实施阅读筛选的关键决策点的见解。
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
Remedial and Special Education
Remedial and Special Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Remedial and Special Education (RASE) is devoted to the discussion of issues involving the education of persons for whom typical instruction is not effective. Emphasis is on the interpretation of research literature and recommendations for the practice of remedial and special education. Appropriate topics include, but are not limited to, definition, identification, assessment, characteristics, management, and instruction of underachieving and exceptional children, youth, and adults; related services; family involvement; service delivery systems; legislation; litigation; and professional standards and training.
期刊最新文献
Racial and Gender Bias in School Psychologists’ Special Education Classification Considerations Life After High School: The Employment Experiences of Autistic Young Adults Implications of What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines on Single-Case Design: An Investigation of Empty Training Phases Grade Retention: The Role of Speech and Language Disorders, Race and Ethnicity, Sex, Socioeconomic Status, Special Education, and Bilingualism Do I Belong Yet? The Relationship Between Special Education, In-School Suspension, Belonging, and Engagement
×
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