Jeremy Miciak, Mallory Walters, W Pat Taylor, David J Francis, Jack M Fletcher
{"title":"Examining the predictive accuracy and stability of the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen.","authors":"Jeremy Miciak, Mallory Walters, W Pat Taylor, David J Francis, Jack M Fletcher","doi":"10.1007/s11881-025-00346-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate processes to identify individual risk for dyslexia are needed to identify students who require intensive interventions and prevent text reading difficulties. The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen (SDS) is a teacher rating tool available for use in schools and clinics to screen for dyslexia risk. In this pre-registered study, we evaluated the stability and accuracy of a prototype of the SDS administered in fall of Kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd Grades for predicting reading difficulties at the end of 1st and 2nd Grades with a sample of 683 students tracked across these grades. Paired comparisons of teacher ratings on the SDS K-2nd Grades demonstrated moderate overall stability, but stability for at-risk students was much lower and approximately two in three students changed risk category once across the 3 years. The SDS identified a high percentage of truly at-risk students (sensitivity range .63-1.0). However, the SDS yielded a high number of false positives (PPV range .17-.47). When thresholds for risk were optimized for this sample, the SDS performed comparably with other candidate screening measures. We conclude that risk screening based on current SDS norms would result in large numbers of students receiving unnecessary interventions. Additional research on the technical adequacy of the SDS, including the potential for bias, is necessary before it can be considered an evidence-based tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-025-00346-x","RegionNum":3,"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
Accurate processes to identify individual risk for dyslexia are needed to identify students who require intensive interventions and prevent text reading difficulties. The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen (SDS) is a teacher rating tool available for use in schools and clinics to screen for dyslexia risk. In this pre-registered study, we evaluated the stability and accuracy of a prototype of the SDS administered in fall of Kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd Grades for predicting reading difficulties at the end of 1st and 2nd Grades with a sample of 683 students tracked across these grades. Paired comparisons of teacher ratings on the SDS K-2nd Grades demonstrated moderate overall stability, but stability for at-risk students was much lower and approximately two in three students changed risk category once across the 3 years. The SDS identified a high percentage of truly at-risk students (sensitivity range .63-1.0). However, the SDS yielded a high number of false positives (PPV range .17-.47). When thresholds for risk were optimized for this sample, the SDS performed comparably with other candidate screening measures. We conclude that risk screening based on current SDS norms would result in large numbers of students receiving unnecessary interventions. Additional research on the technical adequacy of the SDS, including the potential for bias, is necessary before it can be considered an evidence-based tool.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Dyslexia is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of dyslexia, its comorbid conditions; and theory-based practices on remediation, and intervention of dyslexia and related areas of written language disorders including spelling, composing and mathematics. Primary consideration for publication is given to original empirical studies, significant review, and well-documented reports of evidence-based effective practices. Only original papers are considered for publication.