The ReadFree tool for the identification of poor readers: a validation study based on a machine learning approach in monolingual and minority-language children
Desiré Carioti, Natale Adolfo Stucchi, Carlo Toneatto, Marta Franca Masia, Milena Del Monte, Silvia Stefanelli, Simona Travellini, Antonella Marcelli, Marco Tettamanti, Mirta Vernice, Maria Teresa Guasti, Manuela Berlingeri
{"title":"The ReadFree tool for the identification of poor readers: a validation study based on a machine learning approach in monolingual and minority-language children","authors":"Desiré Carioti, Natale Adolfo Stucchi, Carlo Toneatto, Marta Franca Masia, Milena Del Monte, Silvia Stefanelli, Simona Travellini, Antonella Marcelli, Marco Tettamanti, Mirta Vernice, Maria Teresa Guasti, Manuela Berlingeri","doi":"10.1007/s11881-023-00287-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this study, we validated the “<i>ReadFree tool</i>”, a computerised battery of 12 visual and auditory tasks developed to identify poor readers also in minority-language children (MLC). We tested the task-specific discriminant power on 142 Italian-monolingual participants (8–13 years old) divided into monolingual poor readers (<i>N</i> = 37) and good readers (<i>N</i> = 105) according to standardised Italian reading tests. The performances at the discriminant tasks of the <i>“ReadFree tool</i>” were entered into a classification and regression tree (CART) model to identify monolingual poor and good readers. The set of classification rules extracted from the CART model were applied to the MLC’s performance and the ensuing classification was compared to the one based on standardised Italian reading tests. According to the CART model, auditory go-no/go (regular), RAN and Entrainment<sub>100bpm</sub> were the most discriminant tasks. When compared with the clinical classification, the CART model accuracy was 86% for the monolinguals and 76% for the MLC. Executive functions and timing skills turned out to have a relevant role in reading. Results of the CART model on MLC support the idea that ad hoc standardised tasks that go beyond reading are needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"73 3","pages":"356 - 392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11881-023-00287-3.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-023-00287-3","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: 2
Abstract
In this study, we validated the “ReadFree tool”, a computerised battery of 12 visual and auditory tasks developed to identify poor readers also in minority-language children (MLC). We tested the task-specific discriminant power on 142 Italian-monolingual participants (8–13 years old) divided into monolingual poor readers (N = 37) and good readers (N = 105) according to standardised Italian reading tests. The performances at the discriminant tasks of the “ReadFree tool” were entered into a classification and regression tree (CART) model to identify monolingual poor and good readers. The set of classification rules extracted from the CART model were applied to the MLC’s performance and the ensuing classification was compared to the one based on standardised Italian reading tests. According to the CART model, auditory go-no/go (regular), RAN and Entrainment100bpm were the most discriminant tasks. When compared with the clinical classification, the CART model accuracy was 86% for the monolinguals and 76% for the MLC. Executive functions and timing skills turned out to have a relevant role in reading. Results of the CART model on MLC support the idea that ad hoc standardised tasks that go beyond reading are needed.
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.