使用解码方法识别阅读困难:对英语作为第一语言学习者和英语学习者的元分析

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Miao Li, Shuai Zhang, Yuting Liu, Catherine Snow, Huan Zhang, Bing Han
{"title":"使用解码方法识别阅读困难:对英语作为第一语言学习者和英语学习者的元分析","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

有阅读困难或有阅读困难风险的学生受益于准确的早期识别和干预。先前的研究采用了各种解码措施来筛选学生的RD,但识别标准一直不一致。对英语学习者(ELLs)来说,评估有词汇障碍的学生尤其具有挑战性,因为词汇不足会影响解码。此外,很少有研究综合研究了研究人员是否使用不同的测量方法来筛选RD的ELLs和el1,以及这些差异是否导致RD的ELLs和RD的el1之间不同的解码谱。为了解决这些差距,本研究使用荟萃分析来检查RD评估中使用的解码方法,以及ELLs和el1的结果是否不同。研究结果表明,真实的单词阅读评估比非单词阅读评估更能识别出解码缺陷的学生。尽管在ELLs和el1中使用了不同的RD筛查方法,但有和没有RD的ELLs之间的差距与有和没有RD的el1之间的差距相似。这些结果表明,受单词知识影响的真正的单词依赖测量比非单词依赖测量对ELLs和el1都能提供更全面的RD评估。我们鼓励未来的研究人员在筛查两种人群的RD时使用一致的解码方法,以最大限度地提高结果的可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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