Concurrent and predictive validity of dynamic assessments of word reading in young children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Early evaluation of word reading skills is an important step in understanding and predicting children’s future literacy abilities. Traditionally, word reading evaluations are conducted using ‘static’ assessments (SA), which measure a child’s acquired knowledge and are prone to floor effects. Additionally, many of these tools are developed exclusively for English monolinguals, and therefore cannot be used equitably to evaluate the abilities of bilingual children. Dynamic assessment (DA), which evaluates the ability to learn a skill, is a potentially more equitable alternative. To establish that use of DAs is a valid alternative to traditional SAs, their concurrent agreement with gold standard SA measures and their predictive agreement with later word reading outcomes should be considered. In line with this, the primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the concurrent and predictive validity of DAs of word reading skills. Two secondary objectives are (i) to address which types of word reading DAs (phonological awareness, sound-symbol knowledge, or decoding) demonstrate the strongest relationships with equivalent concurrent static measures and later word reading outcomes, and (ii) to consider for which populations, defined by language status (monolingual vs. bilingual vs. mixed) and reading status (typically developing vs. at-risk vs. mixed) these DAs are valid. Thirty-four studies from 32 papers were identified through searching 5 databases, and the grey literature. Included studies provided a correlation between a DA and concurrent SA, or a DA and a later word reading outcome measure. Regarding concurrent validity, we observed a strong relationship between DAs and SAs in general (r=.60); however, subgroup analyses indicate that DAs of decoding (r=.54) and phonological awareness (r=.73) measures demonstrate greater strength of correlation with their static counterparts, compared to DAs of sound-symbol knowledge (r=.34). In terms of predictive validity, we observed a similarly strong relationship between DAs and word reading outcome measures (r=.57), independently of the type of measure. Subgroup analyses conducted based on participant language status suggested that there are significant differences between mean effect sizes for monolingual, bilingual and mixed language groups in terms of DAs’ concurrent validity with SAs, but no significant differences for predictive validity with word reading outcome measures. There were also no significant differences between mean effect sizes for at-risk, typically developing, or mixed groups in terms of DAs concurrent validity with SAs or predictive validity with word reading outcome measures. Results provide preliminary evidence to suggest that DAs of phonological awareness and decoding skills are a valid alternative to SAs of equivalent constructs and are valid for the future prediction of word reading outcomes across population groups regardless of their language or reading status.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».