Universal Screening Methods and Models: Diagnostic Accuracy of Reading Assessments

Abstract

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.

The Effect of Supplemental Reading Instruction on Fluency Outcomes for Children With Down Syndrome: A Closer Look at Curriculum-Based Measures

“…The extent to which CBM captures growth and responsiveness to instruction, relative to other measures, remains an important consideration in evaluating reading instruction for children with DS (Lemons & Fuchs, 2010). CBM is used as a universal screening and progress monitoring tool within school-wide multitiered systems of support (MTSS) frameworks designed to allocate educational resources through ongoing assessment (Van Meveren et al, 2020). A related use of CBM is data-based individualization (DBI; Fuchs et al, 2020).…”

Modeling within‐year growth on the Mathematics Measure of Academic Progress

“…Based on the results from this study showing lack of sensitivity to growth and the lack of prior independent investigation of growth trajectories, the Math MAP needs additional evidence from Stage 2 research studies to be considered an effective, recommended progress monitoring tool. In terms of the Math MAP, there is also a need for additional Stage 1 studies, such as the ones completed for the Reading and Language Usage MAP tests (e.g., Ball & O'Connor, 2016; January & Ardoin, 2015; Klingbeil et al, 2017; VanMeveren et al, 2018). Further evidence would make a stronger case for the Math MAP, part of MAP Growth, as a screening and growth measure.…”

“…For example, Ball and O'Connor (2016) found that the Reading and Language Usage MAP tests in combination with oral reading fluency and special education status, explained 68% of the variance in performance on the Wisconsin end‐of‐year assessment. Additionally, there is evidence for the MAP as the better predictor of performance, on the Minnesota state assessment, as compared to CBM, student growth, and previous state test scores (VanMeveren et al, 2018). Furthermore, the Reading MAP and reading CBM have concurrent validity for universal screening (January & Ardoin, 2015).…”

“…Although the MAP is marketed as an assessment to inform screening and growth measurement, peer‐reviewed evidence to date supports its use as a screening measure, mostly for the Reading and Language Usage tests (e.g., Ball & O'Connor, 2016; January & Ardoin, 2015; Klingbeil et al, 2017; VanMeveren et al, 2018). In addition, there is no evidence supporting any of the MAP subject tests at the secondary level, only elementary grades.…”

Decision Accuracy of Commonly Used Dyslexia Screeners Among Students Who Are Potentially at Risk for Reading Difficulties

“…Screeners used for educational decision-making should be brief, require few resources, and disrupt the educational routine as little as possible (Kilgus et al, 2013). Many schools already conduct reading screening three times each year to identify children who are at risk for reading difficulties and to improve student learning by targeting intervention so that students do not fall further behind their peers (VanMeveren et al, 2020). Next, we will discuss a commonly used reading screener and a relatively new one purportedly designed to screen for dyslexia.…”