Screening Pediatric Patients for Reading difficulties Test: Draft (SPRouT-D)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Screening Pediatric Patients for Reading difficulties Test: Draft (SPRouT-D) is a brief checklist that takes two-to-three minutes to administer and is designed to assess early markers of reading disabilities/dyslexia in children from pre-K to second grade. It is important to note that this tool is not yet a scientifically validated screening instrument (nor is it a diagnostic instrument), but it is an evidence-based checklist designed in the interest of practical rigor for clinicians. The goal of the checklist is to provide a formative assessment that will identify children at risk for these challenges who require further investigation in the context of a busy pediatric practice. The SPRouT-D consists of two sections: a history and brief assessment. There are five different forms of the assessment based on a child’s educational experience (from no early childhood educational experience to the second grade). The first section of the instrument is the history, which focuses on risk factors such as family history, developmental language delay and phonemic awareness challenges. The second section, which is a brief clinical assessment, consists of five-to-eight items (depending on the child’s educational experience) that briefly evaluate literacy precursors, including phonemic awareness (rhyming, letter identification, phoneme matching, sound/symbol association, sound/syllable deletion, phoneme blending, nonsense word decoding) and working memory. The SPRouT-D is not a validated instrument, and normative scores are not yet available. Our goal with this first version of the tool was to optimize the instrument’s sensitivity with conservative thresholds for follow-up and referral as indicated in the preliminary scoring tables. We are sharing this draft version of the SPRouT-D and invite researchers and clinicians to review it, use it, and provide comments on it. Further development of the tool will involve validation and the authors are seeking clinical partners for this next step. For this phase we encourage researchers to share normative data with us. Once these findings are available, they will be incorporated and shared with the research and clinical communities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".