Responding to parental concern about children’s reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study explored if parents are accurate in their reading concerns, with implications for paediatric practice. Methods: Parents of school-aged children in 34 schools in Ontario, Canada responded to a questionnaire about their children's academic development (27% response), and their children participated in standardized, norm-referenced tests of word reading and an oral sentence recall task. Parental concern status was retrospectively cross-referenced with reading difficulty status (<25th percentile on the word reading tests) for grade 2 children with complete data (n = 294); diagnostic accuracy was evaluated. Demographic and reading-related characteristics of children whose parents' concern did not match their reading difficulty status were explored. Results: Approximately 22% of parents endorsed concern, while 18.5% of children had word reading difficulty. Parental concern status accurately corresponded with reading difficulty status in 81% of cases (95% CI: 76% to 85%). Specificity was 85% (95% CI: 80% to 90%), while sensitivity was 59% (95% CI: 44% to 73%). Children of unconcerned parents rarely had word reading problems (NPV 91%; 95% CI: 88% to 94%), while children with concerned parents had word reading difficulty in 45% of cases (PPV; 95% CI: 36% to 54%). Apparent inaccuracy (i.e., mismatch between parental concern and reading difficulty status) was related to children's word reading, oral sentence recall skills, and English language learner (ELL) status, but not child age, sex, or parent education. Conclusions: Many parents of grade 2 children endorse reading concerns. Parental concern is an overall accurate screener for word reading difficulty, although some children will be missed. Evidence-informed recommendations for responding to parental concern are provided.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".