Accuracy of Teacher Assessments of Second-Language Students at Risk for Reading Disability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the accuracy of teacher assessments in screening for reading disabilities among students of English as a second language (ESL) and as a first language (L1). Academic and oral language tests were administered to 369 children (249 ESL, 120 L1) at the beginning of Grade 1 and at the end of Grade 2. Concurrently, 51 teachers nominated children at risk for reading failure and completed rating scales assessing academic and oral language skills. Scholastic records were reviewed for notation of concern or referral. The criterion measure was a standardized reading score based on phonological awareness, rapid naming, and word recognition. Results indicated that teacher rating scales and nominations had low sensitivity in identifying ESL and L1 students at risk for reading disability at the 1-year mark. Relative to other forms of screening, teacher-expressed concern had lower sensitivity. Finally, oral language proficiency contributed to misclassifications in the ESL group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it