Evaluating the Equivalency of Teletesting and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Measures of Reading Achievement in a Clinically Referred Sample.

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Rebecca W Lieb, Lisa A Jacobson, Luther G Kalb, Alison E Pritchard, Shelley M McDermott, Natasha N Ludwig, Rachel K Peterson, Rowena Ng, Danielle Wexler
{"title":"Evaluating the Equivalency of Teletesting and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Measures of Reading Achievement in a Clinically Referred Sample.","authors":"Rebecca W Lieb, Lisa A Jacobson, Luther G Kalb, Alison E Pritchard, Shelley M McDermott, Natasha N Ludwig, Rachel K Peterson, Rowena Ng, Danielle Wexler","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to build an evidence base to support teletesting as an equivalent modality for standardized neuropsychological assessment. As such, the purpose of this study was twofold. First, this study evaluated teletesting equivalency of standardized reading achievement measures during COVID-19 in children ages 6-16. Further, to examine the impact of COVID-19 on reading, achievement scores were compared in two samples of children assessed before and during COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were referred for testing at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic at an urban, academic medical center. Aim one compared assessments administered in-person (n = 1039) versus teletesting (n = 283). A two one-sided test (TOST) was used to determine equivalency. Aim two compared children seen pre-COVID-19 (n = 2125) and during COVID-19 (n = 1322) including a subsample of elementary school-aged children. One-way analyses of covariance were employed, with insurance type and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition Matrix Reasoning (as a proxy for nonverbal IQ) included as covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed equivalence in reading achievement scores administered via teletesting compared to in-person during COVID-19. For aim two, Nonsense Word Decoding scores were significantly higher for the COVID-19 group compared to the pre-COVID-19 group (p = 0.03). No other significant differences in reading scores were found between groups, including no differences among a subsample of elementary school-aged children (ages 6-10; all ps > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This provides additional support for teletesting equivalency and suggests the negative impact of COVID-19 on foundational reading skills is less than predicted in a clinically referred sample.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to build an evidence base to support teletesting as an equivalent modality for standardized neuropsychological assessment. As such, the purpose of this study was twofold. First, this study evaluated teletesting equivalency of standardized reading achievement measures during COVID-19 in children ages 6-16. Further, to examine the impact of COVID-19 on reading, achievement scores were compared in two samples of children assessed before and during COVID-19.

Methods: Participants were referred for testing at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic at an urban, academic medical center. Aim one compared assessments administered in-person (n = 1039) versus teletesting (n = 283). A two one-sided test (TOST) was used to determine equivalency. Aim two compared children seen pre-COVID-19 (n = 2125) and during COVID-19 (n = 1322) including a subsample of elementary school-aged children. One-way analyses of covariance were employed, with insurance type and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition Matrix Reasoning (as a proxy for nonverbal IQ) included as covariates.

Results: Results showed equivalence in reading achievement scores administered via teletesting compared to in-person during COVID-19. For aim two, Nonsense Word Decoding scores were significantly higher for the COVID-19 group compared to the pre-COVID-19 group (p = 0.03). No other significant differences in reading scores were found between groups, including no differences among a subsample of elementary school-aged children (ages 6-10; all ps > 0.05).

Conclusions: This provides additional support for teletesting equivalency and suggests the negative impact of COVID-19 on foundational reading skills is less than predicted in a clinically referred sample.

评估远程测试的等效性以及COVID-19大流行对临床参考样本阅读成绩测量的影响
目的:2019冠状病毒病大流行凸显了建立证据基础的必要性,以支持远程测试作为标准化神经心理评估的等效方式。因此,这项研究的目的是双重的。首先,本研究评估了6-16岁儿童在COVID-19期间标准化阅读成就措施的远程测试等效性。此外,为了研究COVID-19对阅读的影响,研究人员比较了在COVID-19之前和期间评估的两个儿童样本的成绩得分。方法:参与者被转介到城市学术医疗中心的门诊神经心理学诊所进行测试。目的一比较了亲自进行的评估(n = 1039)和远程测试(n = 283)。采用双单侧检验(TOST)来确定等效性。目标二比较了COVID-19前(n = 2125)和COVID-19期间(n = 1322)的儿童,其中包括小学学龄儿童的子样本。采用单向协方差分析,协变量包括保险类型和韦氏儿童智力量表,第五版矩阵推理(作为非语言智商的代理)。结果:结果显示,在COVID-19期间,远程测试的阅读成绩得分与现场测试相当。对于目标二,与COVID-19前组相比,COVID-19组的无意义单词解码得分显着更高(p = 0.03)。各组之间在阅读成绩上没有发现其他显著差异,包括小学学龄儿童(6-10岁;p < 0.05)。结论:这为远程测试等效性提供了额外的支持,并表明COVID-19对基础阅读技能的负面影响低于临床参考样本的预测。
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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
×
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