Stefania Fontolan, Sandro Franceschini, Marisa Bortolozzo, Linda Greta Dui, Simona Ferrante, Cristiano Termine
{"title":"远距评估会高估小学一、二年级学生的学习障碍风险。","authors":"Stefania Fontolan, Sandro Franceschini, Marisa Bortolozzo, Linda Greta Dui, Simona Ferrante, Cristiano Termine","doi":"10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early administration of reading, writing and math standardised tests allows us to assess the risk of developing a learning disorder and to plan a specific intervention. The ease of access to technological tools and past pandemic restrictions have led to the abandonment of face-to-face assessment in favour of teleassessment methods. Although these kinds of assessments sometimes seem comparable in the literature, their equivalence is not clearly defined. The first aim of our research was to test the comparability of the two modalities using a complete battery of neuropsychological tests. Second, we addressed whether the administration order could influence performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a within-subject sample design, we compared face-to-face and teleassessment performance in reading, writing and math tasks in 64 children attending first and second year of primary school.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Teleassessment scores were lower than face-to-face; math tests weighted on difference. Differences were mitigated by previous experience with face-to-face modality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there was considerable overlap between the two administration methods, teleassessment could lead to overestimation of the risk for learning disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":14511,"journal":{"name":"Italian Journal of Pediatrics","volume":"51 1","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11817320/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teleassessment can overestimate the risk of learning disability in first and second grade of primary school.\",\"authors\":\"Stefania Fontolan, Sandro Franceschini, Marisa Bortolozzo, Linda Greta Dui, Simona Ferrante, Cristiano Termine\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early administration of reading, writing and math standardised tests allows us to assess the risk of developing a learning disorder and to plan a specific intervention. The ease of access to technological tools and past pandemic restrictions have led to the abandonment of face-to-face assessment in favour of teleassessment methods. Although these kinds of assessments sometimes seem comparable in the literature, their equivalence is not clearly defined. The first aim of our research was to test the comparability of the two modalities using a complete battery of neuropsychological tests. Second, we addressed whether the administration order could influence performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a within-subject sample design, we compared face-to-face and teleassessment performance in reading, writing and math tasks in 64 children attending first and second year of primary school.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Teleassessment scores were lower than face-to-face; math tests weighted on difference. Differences were mitigated by previous experience with face-to-face modality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there was considerable overlap between the two administration methods, teleassessment could lead to overestimation of the risk for learning disorders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Italian Journal of Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11817320/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Italian Journal of Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Teleassessment can overestimate the risk of learning disability in first and second grade of primary school.
Background: Early administration of reading, writing and math standardised tests allows us to assess the risk of developing a learning disorder and to plan a specific intervention. The ease of access to technological tools and past pandemic restrictions have led to the abandonment of face-to-face assessment in favour of teleassessment methods. Although these kinds of assessments sometimes seem comparable in the literature, their equivalence is not clearly defined. The first aim of our research was to test the comparability of the two modalities using a complete battery of neuropsychological tests. Second, we addressed whether the administration order could influence performance.
Methods: Using a within-subject sample design, we compared face-to-face and teleassessment performance in reading, writing and math tasks in 64 children attending first and second year of primary school.
Results: Teleassessment scores were lower than face-to-face; math tests weighted on difference. Differences were mitigated by previous experience with face-to-face modality.
Conclusions: Although there was considerable overlap between the two administration methods, teleassessment could lead to overestimation of the risk for learning disorders.
期刊介绍:
Italian Journal of Pediatrics is an open access peer-reviewed journal that includes all aspects of pediatric medicine. The journal also covers health service and public health research that addresses primary care issues.
The journal provides a high-quality forum for pediatricians and other healthcare professionals to report and discuss up-to-the-minute research and expert reviews in the field of pediatric medicine. The journal will continue to develop the range of articles published to enable this invaluable resource to stay at the forefront of the field.
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, which commenced in 1975 as Rivista Italiana di Pediatria, provides a high-quality forum for pediatricians and other healthcare professionals to report and discuss up-to-the-minute research and expert reviews in the field of pediatric medicine. The journal will continue to develop the range of articles published to enable this invaluable resource to stay at the forefront of the field.