A Comparison of Reading Screeners in Kindergarten: The Texas Primary Reading Inventory and Acadience Reading With English Learners and Monolingual English Speakers
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
Measuring and identifying risk for reading difficulties at the kindergarten level is necessary for providing intervention as early as possible. The purpose of this study was to examine concurrent validity evidence of two kindergarten reading screeners, Acadience Reading and Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), as well as diagnostic accuracy at different performance levels on the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Reading Cluster and across ( N = 96) emergent bilingual and monolingual English learners in kindergarten. Findings indicated moderate correlations between Acadience Reading and TPRI with the WJ IV. Diagnostic accuracy results showed screening measures were inadequate when predicting WJ IV performance above 90 SS (standard score), but results improved for almost all measures and student groups when the threshold for performance was lowered to 80 SS. Acadience Reading Below Benchmark (AR BB) offered the lowest overall accuracy for emerging bilingual (EB) students. Implications for efficient and accurate use of reading screeners in schools are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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