比较AimswebPlus与小学高年级普遍筛选基准评估系统

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Pub Date : 2022-11-22 DOI:10.1177/07342829221139520
David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, David J. Osman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Caroline K. Carberry, Jessica S. Kim
{"title":"比较AimswebPlus与小学高年级普遍筛选基准评估系统","authors":"David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, David J. Osman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Caroline K. Carberry, Jessica S. Kim","doi":"10.1177/07342829221139520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Early identification of students needing additional support is a foundational component of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Due to the resource-intensive nature of implementing MTSS, it is critical that universal screening procedures are maximally accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading scores to the Benchmark Assessment System scores. We used data from a mid-size city in Texas to retrospectively compare the classification accuracy between fall aimswebPlus reading composites to the Benchmark Assessment System scores when predicting student performance on the statewide reading test. When classification decisions were made based on the vendor-recommended cut-scores, both measures were insufficiently sensitive for screening in MTSS. Following aimswebPlus’ recommended method for establishing local-cut scores improved the sensitivity of decisions, but the specificity values were well below minimally acceptable levels. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","volume":"41 1","pages":"194 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing AimswebPlus to the Benchmark Assessment System for Universal Screening in Upper Elementary Grades\",\"authors\":\"David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, David J. Osman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Caroline K. Carberry, Jessica S. Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07342829221139520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Early identification of students needing additional support is a foundational component of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Due to the resource-intensive nature of implementing MTSS, it is critical that universal screening procedures are maximally accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading scores to the Benchmark Assessment System scores. We used data from a mid-size city in Texas to retrospectively compare the classification accuracy between fall aimswebPlus reading composites to the Benchmark Assessment System scores when predicting student performance on the statewide reading test. When classification decisions were made based on the vendor-recommended cut-scores, both measures were insufficiently sensitive for screening in MTSS. Following aimswebPlus’ recommended method for establishing local-cut scores improved the sensitivity of decisions, but the specificity values were well below minimally acceptable levels. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"194 - 208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221139520\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221139520","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

早期识别需要额外支持的学生是多层支持系统(MTSS)的基本组成部分。由于实施MTSS的资源密集性,至关重要的是,通用筛查程序要最大限度地准确和高效。本研究的目的是比较aimswibPlus阅读评分与基准评估系统评分的分类准确性。我们使用来自德克萨斯州一个中等规模城市的数据,在预测学生在全州阅读测试中的表现时,回顾性比较秋季aimswibPlus阅读复合材料与基准评估系统分数之间的分类准确性。当根据供应商建议的削减分数做出分类决定时,这两种衡量标准对MTSS中的筛查不够敏感。遵循aimswibPlus推荐的建立局部切割分数的方法提高了决策的敏感性,但特异性值远低于最低可接受水平。讨论了局限性、未来研究的方向以及对实践的启示。
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
Comparing AimswebPlus to the Benchmark Assessment System for Universal Screening in Upper Elementary Grades
Early identification of students needing additional support is a foundational component of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Due to the resource-intensive nature of implementing MTSS, it is critical that universal screening procedures are maximally accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading scores to the Benchmark Assessment System scores. We used data from a mid-size city in Texas to retrospectively compare the classification accuracy between fall aimswebPlus reading composites to the Benchmark Assessment System scores when predicting student performance on the statewide reading test. When classification decisions were made based on the vendor-recommended cut-scores, both measures were insufficiently sensitive for screening in MTSS. Following aimswebPlus’ recommended method for establishing local-cut scores improved the sensitivity of decisions, but the specificity values were well below minimally acceptable levels. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.
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
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (JPA) publishes contemporary and important information focusing on psychological and educational assessment research and evidence-based practices as well as assessment instrumentation. JPA is well known internationally for the quality of published assessment-related research, theory and practice papers, and book and test reviews. The methodologically sound and impiricially-based studies and critical test and book reviews will be of particular interest to all assessment specialists including practicing psychologists, psychoeducational consultants, educational diagnosticians and special educators.
期刊最新文献
Resolving Dimensionality Issues of the Utretch Work Engagement Scale for Students Using an Integrative Data-Analytic Framework Psychometric Properties of the School Support Scale (SSS) for a Sample of Chilean Adolescents Interpretation Evidence for the Multidimensional Test Anxiety Scale: A Brief Report Perceived School Belonging Among Youth with Chronic Physical Illness Florence Bullying-Victimization Scales: Validation Study and Victimization Associations With Well-Being and Social Self-Efficacy
×
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