Jeremy Miciak, Mallory Walters, W Pat Taylor, David J Francis, Jack M Fletcher
{"title":"检验Shaywitz阅读障碍筛查的预测准确性和稳定性。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
需要准确的过程来识别需要强化干预和防止文本阅读困难的学生的个体风险。Shaywitz dyslexascreen (SDS)是一种教师评级工具,可用于学校和诊所筛查阅读障碍风险。在这项预先注册的研究中,我们评估了在幼儿园、一年级和二年级秋季实施的SDS原型的稳定性和准确性,以预测一年级和二年级结束时的阅读困难,样本来自这些年级的683名学生。配对比较SDS k -2年级的教师评分显示出适度的总体稳定性,但有风险的学生的稳定性要低得多,大约三分之二的学生在三年内改变了一次风险类别。SDS确定了很高比例的真正有风险的学生(敏感度范围为0.63 -1.0)。然而,SDS产生了大量假阳性(PPV范围为0.17 - 0.47)。当对该样本的风险阈值进行优化后,SDS的表现与其他候选筛选措施相当。我们的结论是,基于当前SDS规范的风险筛查将导致大量学生接受不必要的干预。在将SDS视为循证工具之前,有必要对其技术充分性进行进一步研究,包括潜在的偏见。
Examining the predictive accuracy and stability of the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen.
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.