Improving the Accuracy of a Direct Route Screening Process

In a response-to-intervention framework, schools typically employ a direct route approach to screening, in which students identified as at risk by a screening process are directly placed into intervention. Direct route approaches require screening decisions to be highly accurate, but few studies examining the predictive validity of reading measures report achieving recommendations for classification accuracy. In this study, two approaches to improving the classification accuracy of predictors of Grade 3 reading performance are compared. Findings indicate that the reliance on single screening measures do not result in high levels of classification accuracy. Classification accuracy improved by 2% when a combination of measures was employed and by 6% when a predicted probability risk index was used. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

[1]  Alysia D. Roehrig,et al.  Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. , 2008, Journal of school psychology.

[2]  M. Pepe,et al.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[3]  Evelyn S. Johnson,et al.  Screening for At-Risk Readers in a Response to Intervention Framework , 2007 .

[4]  Evelyn S. Johnson,et al.  How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments , 2009 .

[5]  Benjamin Silberglitt,et al.  A Longitudinal Examination of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Predictive Validity of R-CBM and High-Stakes Testing , 2005 .

[6]  Jonathan M. Campbell,et al.  Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test , 2010 .

[7]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine , 2002 .

[8]  Robert M. Colomb,et al.  Classification in context , 2002 .

[9]  Rollanda E. O'Connor,et al.  Prediction of Reading Disabilities in Kindergarten and First Grade , 1999 .

[10]  Jack M. Fletcher,et al.  The Role of Instruction in Learning To Read: Preventing Reading Failure in At-Risk Children. , 1998 .

[11]  R. Warner.  Applied Statistics: From Bivariate through Multivariate Techniques [with CD-ROM]. , 2007 .

[12]  Evelyn S. Johnson,et al.  Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI): How to Do It. [RTI Manual]. , 2006 .

[13]  J. Tomblin,et al.  Estimating the Risk of Future Reading Difficulties in Kindergarten Children: A Research-Based Model and Its Clinical Implementation. , 2001, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[14]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Responsiveness-to-Intervention , 2012, Journal of learning disabilities.

[15]  Evelyn S. Johnson,et al.  RTI: A Practitioner's Guide to Implementing Response to Intervention , 2008 .

[16]  S. Samuels.  The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency? , 2007 .

[17]  Alicia Sandman,et al.  Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills , 2010 .

[18]  K. Stanovich.  Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. , 1986 .

[19]  Evelyn S. Johnson,et al.  Foundations and Research on Identifying Model Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sites , 2004 .

[20]  Y. Petscher,et al.  Use of a Measure of Reading Comprehension to Enhance Prediction on the State High Stakes Assessment. , 2008, Learning and individual differences.

[21]  Brant W. Riedel,et al.  The Relation between DIBELS, Reading Comprehension, and Vocabulary in Urban First-Grade Students. , 2007 .

[22]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Preventing reading difficulties in young children , 1998 .

[23]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Extensive Reading Interventions in Grades K-3: From Research to Practice. , 2007 .

[24]  P. Meehl,et al.  Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Selecting At-Risk Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of Decision Rules and Procedures , 2006 .