Breda V. O’Keeffe, Kaitlin Bundock, Kristin Kladis, Kat Nelson
{"title":"幼儿园阅读筛查措施技能表现评估的初步研究","authors":"Breda V. O’Keeffe, Kaitlin Bundock, Kristin Kladis, Kat Nelson","doi":"10.1177/15345084221091173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Kindergarten reading screening measures typically identify many students as at risk who later meet criteria on important outcome measures (i.e., false positives). To address this issue, we evaluated a gated screening process that included accelerated progress monitoring, followed by a simple goal/reward procedure (skill vs. performance assessment, SPA) to distinguish between skill and performance difficulties on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in a multiple baseline across students design. Nine kindergarten students scored below benchmark on PSF and/or NWF at the middle of year benchmark assessment. Across students and skills (n = 13 panels of the study), nine met/exceeded benchmark during baseline (suggesting additional exposure to the assessments was adequate), two exceeded benchmark during goal/reward procedures (suggesting adding a motivation component was adequate), and two required extended exposure to goal/reward or skill-based review to exceed the benchmark. Across panels of the baseline, 12 of 13 skills were at/above the end-of-year benchmark on PSF and/or NWF, suggesting lower risk than predicted by middle-of-year screening. Due to increasing baseline responding, experimental control was limited; however, these results suggest that simple progress monitoring may help reduce false positives after screening. Future research on this hypothesis is needed.","PeriodicalId":46264,"journal":{"name":"ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION","volume":"48 1","pages":"67 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skill Performance Assessment for Kindergarten Reading Screening Measures: Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"Breda V. O’Keeffe, Kaitlin Bundock, Kristin Kladis, Kat Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15345084221091173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Kindergarten reading screening measures typically identify many students as at risk who later meet criteria on important outcome measures (i.e., false positives). To address this issue, we evaluated a gated screening process that included accelerated progress monitoring, followed by a simple goal/reward procedure (skill vs. performance assessment, SPA) to distinguish between skill and performance difficulties on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in a multiple baseline across students design. Nine kindergarten students scored below benchmark on PSF and/or NWF at the middle of year benchmark assessment. Across students and skills (n = 13 panels of the study), nine met/exceeded benchmark during baseline (suggesting additional exposure to the assessments was adequate), two exceeded benchmark during goal/reward procedures (suggesting adding a motivation component was adequate), and two required extended exposure to goal/reward or skill-based review to exceed the benchmark. Across panels of the baseline, 12 of 13 skills were at/above the end-of-year benchmark on PSF and/or NWF, suggesting lower risk than predicted by middle-of-year screening. Due to increasing baseline responding, experimental control was limited; however, these results suggest that simple progress monitoring may help reduce false positives after screening. Future research on this hypothesis is needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"67 - 79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221091173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221091173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Skill Performance Assessment for Kindergarten Reading Screening Measures: Pilot Study
Kindergarten reading screening measures typically identify many students as at risk who later meet criteria on important outcome measures (i.e., false positives). To address this issue, we evaluated a gated screening process that included accelerated progress monitoring, followed by a simple goal/reward procedure (skill vs. performance assessment, SPA) to distinguish between skill and performance difficulties on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in a multiple baseline across students design. Nine kindergarten students scored below benchmark on PSF and/or NWF at the middle of year benchmark assessment. Across students and skills (n = 13 panels of the study), nine met/exceeded benchmark during baseline (suggesting additional exposure to the assessments was adequate), two exceeded benchmark during goal/reward procedures (suggesting adding a motivation component was adequate), and two required extended exposure to goal/reward or skill-based review to exceed the benchmark. Across panels of the baseline, 12 of 13 skills were at/above the end-of-year benchmark on PSF and/or NWF, suggesting lower risk than predicted by middle-of-year screening. Due to increasing baseline responding, experimental control was limited; however, these results suggest that simple progress monitoring may help reduce false positives after screening. Future research on this hypothesis is needed.