Screening for At-Risk Readers in a Response to Intervention Framework

Jenkins, James J.; Hudson, Roxanne F.; Johnson, Evelyn S.

doi:10.1080/02796015.2007.12087919

Cited by 215 publications

(208 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

205

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Universal screening is an essential component of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) as it is often the first mechanism by which students are identified as at risk of future failure. Given the importance of universal screening outcomes, it is necessary for measures to be reliable, valid, and accurate to aid in the proper allocation of finite resources (Glover & Albers, 2007; Jenkins et al, 2007). Despite this importance, the current literature on traditional screening measures (i.e., CBMs) indicates that levels of diagnostic accuracy are often inadequate for use in decision making (e.g., Johnson, Jenkins, Petscher, & Catts, 2009; Petscher & Kim, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When dichotomizing state test scores into passing/failing, we used the passing standard in place during the 2015 administration (i.e., satisfactory and advanced categories, scaled score of 1,331 or higher was passing). Although various guidelines exist for acceptable levels of diagnostic accuracy (.70 to .90; Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007; Johnson, Jenkins, & Petscher, 2010), a recent meta-analysis suggests .80 for sensitivity and .70 for specificity, when used in screening decisions (Kilgus, Methe, Maggin, & Tomasula, 2014). For this study, ROC curves were used to identify the cut score that maximized sensitivity and specificity, with a minimum specificity of .70.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-Term Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Reading Computer-Adaptive Test

Ochs

Keller‐Margulis

Santi

et al. 2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal screening is the first mechanism by which students are identified as at risk of failure in the context of multitiered systems of supports. This study examined the validity and diagnostic accuracy of a reading computer-adaptive test as a screener to identify state achievement test performance for third through fifth graders ( N = 1,696). Single time points and slopes within year and longitudinally were examined. Validity results for single points were moderate (.60–.79, p < .002). Validity for slopes and the state test were weak or not significant. Diagnostic accuracy cut scores that maximized sensitivity and specificity yielded high accuracy for single points whereas sensitivity was inadequate for slopes. Practical implications and future directions are presented.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Reading Computer-Adaptive Test

Ochs

Keller‐Margulis

Santi

et al. 2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ideally, a test would have 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. In practice this is not possible due to measurement error and the difficulty measuring complicated constructs such as reading (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). In the school setting, educators need to balance between the two probabilities, but both sensitivity and specificity need be high for screening tools.…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some students are identified at risk on a screener, but do not have a reading problem. These false positives result in overidentification of students and force schools to utilize more time and materials by providing services to students who do not require them (Jenkins et al, 2007). Overidentification can hinder systems that are seeking to target supports (Compton et al, 2010) and false negatives in which a student passes a reading screener, but fails the end of the year test.…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overidentification can hinder systems that are seeking to target supports (Compton et al, 2010) and false negatives in which a student passes a reading screener, but fails the end of the year test. These are especially deleterious for students who may miss opportunities to remediate the problem (Jenkins et al, 2007; Torgesen, 2002). The accumulation of missed opportunities could compound problems and place children further behind their peers.…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Universal Screening Methods and Models: Diagnostic Accuracy of Reading Assessments

VanMeveren

Hulac

Wollersheim-Shervey

2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading screening assessments help educators identify students who are at risk of reading and determine the need for intervention and supports. However, some schools screen and assess students more often than needed, and the additional information does not improve the accuracy of decisions. This may be especially true for students at the upper elementary grades who have already taken high-stakes tests. This exploratory study evaluated how accurately a variety of screening measures predicted performance on a high-stakes end of year test for fourth- and fifth-grade students. Results of this study indicated that previous scores on the statewide assessment and computer-adaptive assessment best predicted student performance on a high-stakes reading test (Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment—Third Edition). When comparing screening models, a two-gate approach appeared to be the best method for identifying student risk.

show abstract

Early Identification of Reading Difficulties: A Screening Strategy that Adjusts the Sensitivity to the Level of Prediction Accuracy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early screening for reading difficulties before the onset of instruction is desirable because it allows intervention that is targeted at prevention rather than remediation of reading difficulties. However, early screening may be too inaccurate to effectively allocate resources to those who need them. The present study compared the accuracy of early screening before the onset of formal reading instruction with late screening six months into the first year of instruction. The study followed 164 Danish students from the end of Grade 0 to the end of Grade 2. Early screening included measures of phonemic awareness, rapid naming, letter knowledge, paired associate learning, and reading. Late screening included only reading. Results indicated that reading measures improved substantially as predictors over the first six months of Grade 1, to the point where late reading measures alone provided as much information as the early measures combined. In the light of these results and a less than perfect early screening accuracy, a new strategy for screening is introduced and discussed. The strategy proposes multi-point screening with gradually increasing sensitivity to strike a balance between manageable screening procedures and outcomes and early identification of students who are most likely in need of extra resources. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Screening for At-Risk Readers in a Response to Intervention Framework

Cited by 215 publications

References 0 publications

Long-Term Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Reading Computer-Adaptive Test

Long-Term Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of a Reading Computer-Adaptive Test

Universal Screening Methods and Models: Diagnostic Accuracy of Reading Assessments

Early Identification of Reading Difficulties: A Screening Strategy that Adjusts the Sensitivity to the Level of Prediction Accuracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About