Abstract
AbstractUniversal screening practices play a critical role in preventing reading difficulties. Screening decisions typically rely on results from several curriculum‐based measurement (CBM) tools. In this study, data from 236 first graders were pulled as a subsample from a statewide study. Participants completed multiple early literacy CBM tools and an outcome measure. Performance differences were compared across tools and publishers to examine classification accuracy. Results show no differences in performance between nonsense word fluency tools across publishers, yet differences were found examining classification accuracy. We also report results of an exploratory analysis examining whether improvements in testing efficiency in early literacy screening are possible via multiple‐gating procedures. Improving the accuracy and efficiency of screening procedures are discussed as implications for practice.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
