Dynamic Assessments of Word Reading Skills in Diverse School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis

Emily Wood, Kereisha Biggs, Monika Molnar
{"title":"Dynamic Assessments of Word Reading Skills in Diverse School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Emily Wood, Kereisha Biggs, Monika Molnar","doi":"10.1044/2024_persp-23-00262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Dynamic assessments evaluate ability to learn and may be less biased against children who historically have underperformed on static measures that evaluate acquired knowledge. This meta-analysis examined the validity of dynamic assessments of word reading skills (phonological awareness, sound–symbol knowledge, and decoding), as measured by the strength of their correlation with performance on word reading measures. The consistency of their validity across participant reading status (typically developing vs. at risk), language status (monolingual vs. bilingual), and age group (4–5 vs. 6–7 vs. 8–9 years) was also examined to determine whether this assessment approach is an equitable means of evaluating early word reading skills.\n \n \n \n Electronic databases and preprint repositories were searched to identify studies that evaluated dynamic assessments of word reading skills conducted with children between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Pearson's correlation coefficients representing the relationship between dynamic assessments and word reading measures were extracted, and an overall pooled mean effect size was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. Subgroup analyses for participant reading status, language status, and age group were also conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in effect sizes across groups.\n \n \n \n \n Thirty-five studies with 192 effect sizes were identified. Overall, dynamic assessments of word reading skills demonstrated strong correlations with word reading measures (\n g\n = 0.49). Subgroup analysis by age indicated that dynamic assessments are significantly better suited to evaluate word reading in younger children (ages 4–5 and 6–7 years) than older students (ages 8–9 years;\n p\n = .0001). Validity was consistent across typically developing and at-risk participants and across bilinguals and monolinguals. There were few studies conducted with bilinguals despite dynamic assessment's purported application for this population.\n \n \n \n \n This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence to support dynamic assessments as a valid and equitable means of evaluating word reading skills with diverse children aged 4–7 years.\n \n \n \n \n https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25293046\n \n","PeriodicalId":74424,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_persp-23-00262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dynamic assessments evaluate ability to learn and may be less biased against children who historically have underperformed on static measures that evaluate acquired knowledge. This meta-analysis examined the validity of dynamic assessments of word reading skills (phonological awareness, sound–symbol knowledge, and decoding), as measured by the strength of their correlation with performance on word reading measures. The consistency of their validity across participant reading status (typically developing vs. at risk), language status (monolingual vs. bilingual), and age group (4–5 vs. 6–7 vs. 8–9 years) was also examined to determine whether this assessment approach is an equitable means of evaluating early word reading skills. Electronic databases and preprint repositories were searched to identify studies that evaluated dynamic assessments of word reading skills conducted with children between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Pearson's correlation coefficients representing the relationship between dynamic assessments and word reading measures were extracted, and an overall pooled mean effect size was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. Subgroup analyses for participant reading status, language status, and age group were also conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in effect sizes across groups. Thirty-five studies with 192 effect sizes were identified. Overall, dynamic assessments of word reading skills demonstrated strong correlations with word reading measures ( g = 0.49). Subgroup analysis by age indicated that dynamic assessments are significantly better suited to evaluate word reading in younger children (ages 4–5 and 6–7 years) than older students (ages 8–9 years; p = .0001). Validity was consistent across typically developing and at-risk participants and across bilinguals and monolinguals. There were few studies conducted with bilinguals despite dynamic assessment's purported application for this population. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence to support dynamic assessments as a valid and equitable means of evaluating word reading skills with diverse children aged 4–7 years. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25293046
对不同学龄儿童单词阅读能力的动态评估:元分析
动态测评评估的是学习能力,对于那些在评估已掌握知识的静态测评中表现不佳的儿童来说,动态测评的偏差可能较小。本荟萃分析研究了单词阅读技能(语音意识、声音符号知识和解码)动态评估的有效性,其衡量标准是动态评估与单词阅读测量成绩之间的相关性强度。研究还考察了不同阅读状况(典型发展期与高风险期)、不同语言状况(单语与双语)和不同年龄组(4-5 岁与 6-7 岁与 8-9 岁)的受测者的有效性一致性,以确定这种评估方法是否是评估早期单词阅读技能的公平手段。 我们搜索了电子数据库和预印本库,以确定对 4 至 10 岁儿童进行单词阅读技能动态评估的研究。我们提取了代表动态评估与单词阅读测量之间关系的皮尔逊相关系数,并采用随机效应荟萃分析法和稳健方差估计法计算出了总体的平均效应大小。此外,还对参与者的阅读状况、语言状况和年龄组进行了分组分析,以确定各组之间的效应大小是否存在显著差异。 共确定了 35 项研究,192 个效应大小。总体而言,单词阅读技能的动态评估与单词阅读测量结果(g = 0.49)具有很强的相关性。按年龄进行的分组分析表明,动态评估在评估低龄儿童(4-5 岁和 6-7 岁)的单词阅读能力方面明显优于高龄学生(8-9 岁;p = .0001)。对于发育正常的学生和问题学生,以及双语学生和单语学生,动态评估的有效性是一致的。尽管动态评估据称适用于双语学生,但针对双语学生的研究却很少。 这项荟萃分析提供了初步证据,支持动态评估作为一种有效、公平的方法,用于评估 4-7 岁不同儿童的单词阅读能力。https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25293046。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信