幼儿园阅读筛查措施技能表现评估的初步研究

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
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":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"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\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221091173\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221091173","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

幼儿园阅读筛选措施通常会识别出许多有风险的学生,这些学生后来在重要的结果测量中达到了标准(即假阳性)。为了解决这个问题,我们评估了一个门控筛选过程,包括加速进度监测,随后是一个简单的目标/奖励程序(技能与绩效评估,SPA),以区分音素分割流畅性(PSF)和无意义词流畅性(NWF)在多个基线学生设计中的技能和表现困难。在年中基准评核中,有九名幼稚园学童在“学生能力评估”及/或“学生能力评估”上得分低于基准。在学生和技能方面(n = 13个研究小组),9个在基线期间达到/超过基准(表明额外的评估暴露是足够的),2个在目标/奖励程序中超过基准(表明添加动机成分是足够的),2个需要延长目标/奖励或基于技能的评估暴露时间以超过基准。在基线面板中,13项技能中有12项达到或高于PSF和/或NWF的年终基准,表明风险低于年中筛查的预测。由于基线反应增加,实验控制受到限制;然而,这些结果表明,简单的进展监测可能有助于减少筛查后的假阳性。需要对这一假设进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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