Dynamic Assessments of Word Reading Skills in Diverse School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Dynamic assessments evaluate ability to learn and may be less biased against children who historically have underperformed on static measures that evaluate acquired knowledge. This meta-analysis examined the validity of dynamic assessments of word reading skills (phonological awareness, sound–symbol knowledge, and decoding), as measured by the strength of their correlation with performance on word reading measures. The consistency of their validity across participant reading status (typically developing vs. at risk), language status (monolingual vs. bilingual), and age group (4–5 vs. 6–7 vs. 8–9 years) was also examined to determine whether this assessment approach is an equitable means of evaluating early word reading skills. Method: Electronic databases and preprint repositories were searched to identify studies that evaluated dynamic assessments of word reading skills conducted with children between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Pearson's correlation coefficients representing the relationship between dynamic assessments and word reading measures were extracted, and an overall pooled mean effect size was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. Subgroup analyses for participant reading status, language status, and age group were also conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in effect sizes across groups. Results: Thirty-five studies with 192 effect sizes were identified. Overall, dynamic assessments of word reading skills demonstrated strong correlations with word reading measures ( g = 0.49). Subgroup analysis by age indicated that dynamic assessments are significantly better suited to evaluate word reading in younger children (ages 4–5 and 6–7 years) than older students (ages 8–9 years; p = .0001). Validity was consistent across typically developing and at-risk participants and across bilinguals and monolinguals. There were few studies conducted with bilinguals despite dynamic assessment's purported application for this population. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence to support dynamic assessments as a valid and equitable means of evaluating word reading skills with diverse children aged 4–7 years. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25293046
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 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 ».