Characteristics of Dynamic Assessments of Word Reading Skills and Their Implications for Validity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic assessments (DAs) of word reading skills demonstrate strong criterion reference validity with word reading measures (WRMs). However, DAs vary in the skills they assess, their format and administration method, and the type of words and symbols used in test items. These characteristics may have implications on assessment validity. To compare validity of DAs of word reading skills on these factors of interest, a systematic review of five databases and the gray literature was conducted. We identified 35 studies that met the inclusion criteria of evaluating participants aged 4 to 10, using a DA of word reading skills and reporting a Pearson’s correlation coefficient as an effect size. A random effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation and subgroup analyses by DA characteristics was conducted. There were no significant differences in mean effect size based on administration method (computer vs. in-person) or symbol type (familiar vs. novel). However, DAs that evaluate phonological awareness or decoding (vs. sound-symbol knowledge), those that use a graduated prompt format (vs. test-teach-retest), and DAs that use nonwords (vs. real words) demonstrated significantly stronger correlations with WRMs. These results inform selection of DAs in clinical and research settings, and development of novel, valid DAs of word reading skills.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".