Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Miao Li, Shuai Zhang, Yuting Liu, Catherine Snow, Huan Zhang, Bing Han
{"title":"Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners","authors":"Miao Li, Shuai Zhang, Yuting Liu, Catherine Snow, Huan Zhang, Bing Han","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-09987-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Students with or at risk of reading difficulties (RD) benefit from accurate early identification and intervention. Previous research has employed various decoding measures to screen students for RD, but the criteria for identification have been inconsistent. Assessing students with RD is especially challenging in English Language Learners (ELLs), as vocabulary deficits can impact decoding. Additionally, few research syntheses have examined whether researchers use different measures to screen ELLs and EL1s for RD, and whether these differences result in distinct decoding profiles between ELLs with RD and EL1s with RD. To address these gaps, this study uses a meta-analysis to examine the decoding measures used in RD assessments and whether outcomes differ for ELLs and EL1s. The findings show that real word reading assessments identify students with more pronounced decoding deficits than nonword reading assessments. Despite the use of different RD screening measures for ELLs and EL1s, the gap between ELLs with and without RD was similar to that between EL1s with and without RD. These results suggest that real word-reliant measures, which are influenced by word knowledge, provide a more comprehensive assessment of RD than nonword-reliant measures for both ELLs and EL1s. We encourage future researchers to use consistent decoding measures when screening RD in both populations, to maximize comparability of findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09987-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Students with or at risk of reading difficulties (RD) benefit from accurate early identification and intervention. Previous research has employed various decoding measures to screen students for RD, but the criteria for identification have been inconsistent. Assessing students with RD is especially challenging in English Language Learners (ELLs), as vocabulary deficits can impact decoding. Additionally, few research syntheses have examined whether researchers use different measures to screen ELLs and EL1s for RD, and whether these differences result in distinct decoding profiles between ELLs with RD and EL1s with RD. To address these gaps, this study uses a meta-analysis to examine the decoding measures used in RD assessments and whether outcomes differ for ELLs and EL1s. The findings show that real word reading assessments identify students with more pronounced decoding deficits than nonword reading assessments. Despite the use of different RD screening measures for ELLs and EL1s, the gap between ELLs with and without RD was similar to that between EL1s with and without RD. These results suggest that real word-reliant measures, which are influenced by word knowledge, provide a more comprehensive assessment of RD than nonword-reliant measures for both ELLs and EL1s. We encourage future researchers to use consistent decoding measures when screening RD in both populations, to maximize comparability of findings.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
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