Jialin Lai, Marianne Rice, Juan F. Quinonez-Beltran, Ramona T. Pittman, R. Malatesha Joshi
{"title":"Identifying Emergent Bilinguals at Risk for Reading Difficulties: A Systematic Review of Criterion-Validity of Existing Assessments","authors":"Jialin Lai, Marianne Rice, Juan F. Quinonez-Beltran, Ramona T. Pittman, R. Malatesha Joshi","doi":"10.1177/00222194251331533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Existing language and literacy assessments have been widely validated and applied among monolingual students to identify those at risk for difficulties in reading, yet for emergent bilingual students (EBs), the effectiveness of current assessments to identify potential reading difficulties remains unknown. The present systematic review aimed to examine the criterion validity of assessments conducted among EBs to predict reading achievement in their second language (L2), in addition to the status quo of research methods (i.e., participant and assessment characteristics). A literature search yielded 23 studies that targeted preschool to fifth-grade EBs. Results suggest that decoding, reading fluency, and phonological awareness assessments presented close to satisfactory evidence of criterion validity, whereas assessments of other skills, such as reading comprehension, rapid automatized naming, letter knowledge, and verbal memory, showed weaker validity. Included studies showed homogenous profiles of EBs, indicating a lack of evidence for EBs from various language backgrounds. Existing assessments involved various domains of literacy, including code-related skills, oral language, and domain-general cognitive skills. These assessments also varied across aspects of standardization and language of administration. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251331533","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Existing language and literacy assessments have been widely validated and applied among monolingual students to identify those at risk for difficulties in reading, yet for emergent bilingual students (EBs), the effectiveness of current assessments to identify potential reading difficulties remains unknown. The present systematic review aimed to examine the criterion validity of assessments conducted among EBs to predict reading achievement in their second language (L2), in addition to the status quo of research methods (i.e., participant and assessment characteristics). A literature search yielded 23 studies that targeted preschool to fifth-grade EBs. Results suggest that decoding, reading fluency, and phonological awareness assessments presented close to satisfactory evidence of criterion validity, whereas assessments of other skills, such as reading comprehension, rapid automatized naming, letter knowledge, and verbal memory, showed weaker validity. Included studies showed homogenous profiles of EBs, indicating a lack of evidence for EBs from various language backgrounds. Existing assessments involved various domains of literacy, including code-related skills, oral language, and domain-general cognitive skills. These assessments also varied across aspects of standardization and language of administration. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.