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

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
      DYSLEXIA -- Risk factors; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL tests; RISK assessment; COMPARATIVE studies; STUDENTS; DECISION making; SENSITIVITY & specificity (Statistics); EARLY medical intervention; CHILDREN
    • 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)