Suppr超能文献

用于早期识别阅读障碍的集体筛查工具。

Collective screening tools for early identification of dyslexia.

机构信息

Department of Pedagogical Studies, School of Elementary and Secondary Education "Colégio Criativo," Marília Brazil.

Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" - Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências/Universidade Estadual Paulista Marília, Brazil.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 23;5:1581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01581. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Current response to intervention models (RTIs) favor a three-tier system. In general, Tier 1 consists of evidence-based, effective reading instruction in the classroom and universal screening of all students at the beginning of the grade level to identify children for early intervention. Non-responders to Tier 1 receive small-group tutoring in Tier 2. Non-responders to Tier 2 are given still more intensive, individual intervention in Tier 3. Limited time, personnel and financial resources derail RTI's implementation in Brazilian schools because this approach involves procedures that require extra time and extra personnel in all three tiers, including screening tools which normally consist of tasks administered individually. We explored the accuracy of collectively and easily administered screening tools for the early identification of second graders at risk for dyslexia in a two-stage screening model. A first-stage universal screening based on collectively administered curriculum-based measurements was used in 45 7 years old early Portuguese readers from 4 second-grade classrooms at the beginning of the school year and identified an at-risk group of 13 academic low-achievers. Collectively administered tasks based on phonological judgments by matching figures and figures to spoken words [alternative tools for educators (ATE)] and a comprehensive cognitive-linguistic battery of collective and individual assessments were both administered to all children and constituted the second-stage screening. Low-achievement on ATE tasks and on collectively administered writing tasks (scores at the 25th percentile) showed good sensitivity (true positives) and specificity (true negatives) to poor literacy status defined as scores ≤1 SD below the mean on literacy abilities at the end of fifth grade. These results provide implications for the use of a collectively administered screening tool for the early identification of children at risk for dyslexia in a classroom setting.

摘要

目前的干预反应模型 (RTI) 倾向于采用三层次系统。一般来说,第 1 层包括课堂上基于证据的、有效的阅读教学和对所有学生在年级开始时进行普遍筛查,以确定需要早期干预的儿童。对第 1 层没有反应的学生接受第 2 层的小组辅导。对第 2 层没有反应的学生接受第 3 层更密集的个别干预。巴西学校实施 RTI 的时间、人员和财务资源有限,因为这种方法涉及到所有三个层次都需要额外时间和额外人员的程序,包括通常由个人执行的筛查工具。我们在两阶段筛查模型中探索了集体和易于管理的筛查工具在早期识别有阅读障碍风险的二年级学生方面的准确性。在学年开始时,对来自 4 个二年级班级的 45 名 7 岁左右的早期葡萄牙读者进行了基于集体实施的课程基础测量的第一阶段普遍筛查,并确定了 13 名学业成绩低的高危组。根据语音判断对集体实施的基于图形和图形与单词匹配的任务(教育工作者的替代工具 (ATE))以及对所有儿童进行的集体和个体评估的综合认知语言电池进行集体实施,构成了第二阶段筛查。ATE 任务和集体实施的写作任务(得分在第 25 百分位)的低成就对较差的读写能力状态(定义为五年级末读写能力得分低于平均值 1 个标准差)表现出良好的敏感性(真阳性)和特异性(真阴性)。这些结果为在课堂环境中使用集体实施的筛查工具早期识别有阅读障碍风险的儿童提供了启示。

相似文献

1
Collective screening tools for early identification of dyslexia.
Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 23;5:1581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01581. eCollection 2014.
2
Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework.
J Learn Disabil. 2015 May-Jun;48(3):281-97. doi: 10.1177/0022219413498115. Epub 2013 Aug 14.
3
Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: what level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?
J Learn Disabil. 2012 May-Jun;45(3):204-16. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442151. Epub 2012 Apr 6.
6
Parents' reading history as an indicator of risk for reading difficulties.
Ann Dyslexia. 2017 Oct;67(3):259-280. doi: 10.1007/s11881-017-0143-9. Epub 2017 Nov 2.
7
Classroom phonological awareness instruction and literacy outcomes in the first year of school.
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2013 Apr;44(2):147-60. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0061). Epub 2012 Dec 28.
9
Are overreferrals on developmental screening tests really a problem?
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001 Jan;155(1):54-9. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.155.1.54.
10
Safety words inventory and literacy screener: standardization and validation.
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2002 Nov-Dec;41(9):697-704. doi: 10.1177/000992280204100909.

引用本文的文献

1
Predicting Reading and Spelling Disorders: A 4-Year Prospective Cohort Study.
Front Psychol. 2016 Mar 9;7:337. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00337. eCollection 2016.

本文引用的文献

2
Exploratory Factor Analysis With Small Sample Sizes.
Multivariate Behav Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;44(2):147-81. doi: 10.1080/00273170902794206.
3
Early Screening for Risk of Reading Disabilities: Recommendations for a Four-Step Screening System.
Assess Eff Interv. 2012 Dec;38(1):6-14. doi: 10.1177/1534508412451491.
4
Moderators of working memory deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a meta-analytic review.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Nov;32(7):605-17. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.07.001. Epub 2012 Jul 17.
5
A cross-lagged model of the development of ADHD inattention symptoms and rapid naming speed.
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2012 Nov;40(8):1313-26. doi: 10.1007/s10802-012-9644-5.
6
First-grade cognitive abilities as long-term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status.
J Learn Disabil. 2012 May-Jun;45(3):217-31. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442154.
7
Developmental dyslexia.
Lancet. 2012 May 26;379(9830):1997-2007. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60198-6. Epub 2012 Apr 17.
8
Annual research review: the nature and classification of reading disorders--a commentary on proposals for DSM-5.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012 May;53(5):593-607. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02495.x. Epub 2011 Dec 5.
9
Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties.
Child Dev Perspect. 2009 Apr;3(1):30-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验