How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments?

Autor/inn/en	Johnson, Evelyn S.; Jenkins, Joseph R.; Petscher, Yaacov; Catts, Hugh W.
Titel	How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments?
Quelle	In: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24 (2009) 4, S.174-185 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Petscher, Yaacov)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0938-8982
Schlagwörter	Screening Tests; Test Validity; Reading Difficulties; Disability Identification; Grade 1; Reading Failure; At Risk Students; Elementary School Students; Classification; Cutting Scores; Florida + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Screening-Verfahren; Testvalidität; Reading difficulty; Leseschwierigkeit; School year 01; 1. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 01; Reading disability; Reading weakness; Leseschwäche; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem
Abstract	Screening for early reading problems is a critical step in early intervention and prevention of later reading difficulties. Evaluative frameworks for determining the utility of a screening process are presented in the literature but have not been applied to many screening measures currently in use in numerous schools across the nation. In this study, the accuracy of several Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in predicting which students were at risk for reading failure in first grade was examined in a sample of 12,055 students in Florida. Findings indicate that the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency, Initial Sound Fluency, and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency measures show poor diagnostic utility in predicting end of Grade 1 reading performance. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency in fall of Grade 1 had higher classification accuracy than other DIBELS measures, but when compared to the classification accuracy obtained by assuming that no student had a disability, suggests the need to reevaluate the use of classification accuracy as a way to evaluate screening measures without discussion of base rates. Additionally, when cut scores on the screening tools were set to capture 90 percent of all students at risk for reading problems, a high number of false positives were identified. Finally, different cut scores were needed for different subgroups, such as English Language Learners. Implications for research and practice are discussed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10