潜在阅读困难风险学生常用阅读障碍筛查的决策准确性

IF 1.6 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Learning Disability Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-06-03 DOI:10.1177/07319487221096684
M. Burns, A. Vanderheyden, McKinzie D. Duesenberg‐Marshall, Monica E. Romero, Mallory A Stevens, Jared T Izumi, Elizabeth M. McCollom
{"title":"潜在阅读困难风险学生常用阅读障碍筛查的决策准确性","authors":"M. Burns, A. Vanderheyden, McKinzie D. Duesenberg‐Marshall, Monica E. Romero, Mallory A Stevens, Jared T Izumi, Elizabeth M. McCollom","doi":"10.1177/07319487221096684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Students with dyslexia demonstrate reading difficulty in early literacy skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, word recognition, decoding), and administering screeners is a necessary step to implement effective intervention. There are several commonly used reading screeners, but the decision accuracy and predictive value between them varies. In the current study, scores on two different reading screeners, the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen (SDS) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (DIBELS Next) were compared for 115 U.S. Grades K–3 students with specific reading deficits using the Phonological Awareness Composite of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing as the criterion. Tests of sensitivity, specificity, and post-test probabilities were used to evaluate the decision accuracy of the data. Results suggested that the decision accuracy for DIBELS Next (78%) was better than SDS (45%), and both sensitivity (DIBELS Next = 90%, SDS = 35%) and positive post-test probability (DIBELS Next = 71%, SDS = 42%) favored DIBELS Next. Thus, the DIBELS Next measures demonstrated acceptable decision accuracy in identifying students with low phonological awareness, but the SDS did not.","PeriodicalId":47365,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disability Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision Accuracy of Commonly Used Dyslexia Screeners Among Students Who Are Potentially at Risk for Reading Difficulties\",\"authors\":\"M. Burns, A. Vanderheyden, McKinzie D. Duesenberg‐Marshall, Monica E. Romero, Mallory A Stevens, Jared T Izumi, Elizabeth M. McCollom\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07319487221096684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Students with dyslexia demonstrate reading difficulty in early literacy skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, word recognition, decoding), and administering screeners is a necessary step to implement effective intervention. There are several commonly used reading screeners, but the decision accuracy and predictive value between them varies. In the current study, scores on two different reading screeners, the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen (SDS) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (DIBELS Next) were compared for 115 U.S. Grades K–3 students with specific reading deficits using the Phonological Awareness Composite of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing as the criterion. Tests of sensitivity, specificity, and post-test probabilities were used to evaluate the decision accuracy of the data. Results suggested that the decision accuracy for DIBELS Next (78%) was better than SDS (45%), and both sensitivity (DIBELS Next = 90%, SDS = 35%) and positive post-test probability (DIBELS Next = 71%, SDS = 42%) favored DIBELS Next. Thus, the DIBELS Next measures demonstrated acceptable decision accuracy in identifying students with low phonological awareness, but the SDS did not.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning Disability Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning Disability Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221096684\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Disability Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221096684","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

患有阅读障碍的学生在早期识字技能(如音位意识、单词识别、解码)方面表现出阅读困难,使用筛查器是实施有效干预的必要步骤。有几种常用的阅读筛选器,但它们之间的决策准确性和预测值各不相同。在目前的研究中,使用语音处理综合测试的语音意识复合作为标准,比较了115名有特定阅读缺陷的美国K-3年级学生在两种不同阅读筛查仪上的得分,即Shaywitz阅读障碍筛查仪(SDS)和基础早期读写技能动态指标(DIBELS Next)。敏感性、特异性和测试后概率的测试用于评估数据的决策准确性。结果表明,DIBELS Next的决策准确率(78%)优于SDS(45%),敏感性(DIBELS Next=90%,SDS=35%)和测试后阳性概率(DIBELS-Next=71%,SDS=42%)都有利于DIBELS-Next。因此,DIBELS Next测量在识别低语音意识学生方面显示出可接受的决策准确性,但SDS没有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Decision Accuracy of Commonly Used Dyslexia Screeners Among Students Who Are Potentially at Risk for Reading Difficulties
Students with dyslexia demonstrate reading difficulty in early literacy skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, word recognition, decoding), and administering screeners is a necessary step to implement effective intervention. There are several commonly used reading screeners, but the decision accuracy and predictive value between them varies. In the current study, scores on two different reading screeners, the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen (SDS) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (DIBELS Next) were compared for 115 U.S. Grades K–3 students with specific reading deficits using the Phonological Awareness Composite of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing as the criterion. Tests of sensitivity, specificity, and post-test probabilities were used to evaluate the decision accuracy of the data. Results suggested that the decision accuracy for DIBELS Next (78%) was better than SDS (45%), and both sensitivity (DIBELS Next = 90%, SDS = 35%) and positive post-test probability (DIBELS Next = 71%, SDS = 42%) favored DIBELS Next. Thus, the DIBELS Next measures demonstrated acceptable decision accuracy in identifying students with low phonological awareness, but the SDS did not.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Learning Disability Quarterly publishes high-quality research and scholarship concerning children, youth, and adults with learning disabilities. Consistent with that purpose, the journal seeks to publish articles with the potential to impact and improve educational outcomes, opportunities, and services.
期刊最新文献
The Role of Phonological Decoding on the Reading Skills of Beginning Readers With Reading Disabilities in a Highly Transparent Orthography The Effects of a Morphological Awareness Intervention on Reading and Spelling Ability of Children With Dyslexia Synthesis of Writing Intervention Studies for English Learners With Learning Disabilities Parental Allyship for Children With Dyslexia: A Conceptual Lens on Disability Experience Current Research Informing the Conceptualization of STEM Interventions for Students With LD: An Introduction to the Special Series
×
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