Skill Performance Assessment for Kindergarten Reading Screening Measures: Pilot Study

Kindergarten reading screening measures typically identify many students as at risk who later meet criteria on important outcome measures (i.e., false positives). To address this issue, we evaluated a gated screening process that included accelerated progress monitoring, followed by a simple goal/re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAssessment for effective intervention Vol. 48; no. 2; pp. 67 - 79
Main Authors O’Keeffe, Breda V., Bundock, Kaitlin, Kladis, Kristin, Nelson, Kat
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.03.2023
SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Adequacy
Benchmark tests
Benchmarking
Evaluation
Fluency
Kindergarten
Motivation
Objectives
Performance Based Assessment
Phoneme Grapheme Correspondence
Phonemics
Pilot Projects
Reading Achievement
Reading Difficulties
Reading Skills
Reading Tests
Rewards
Screening Tests
Segmentation
Skills
Students
Young Children
academic screening
progress monitoring
reading
kindergarten
skill/performance assessment
behavior
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Kindergarten reading screening measures typically identify many students as at risk who later meet criteria on important outcome measures (i.e., false positives). To address this issue, we evaluated a gated screening process that included accelerated progress monitoring, followed by a simple goal/reward procedure (skill vs. performance assessment, SPA) to distinguish between skill and performance difficulties on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in a multiple baseline across students design. Nine kindergarten students scored below benchmark on PSF and/or NWF at the middle of year benchmark assessment. Across students and skills (n = 13 panels of the study), nine met/exceeded benchmark during baseline (suggesting additional exposure to the assessments was adequate), two exceeded benchmark during goal/reward procedures (suggesting adding a motivation component was adequate), and two required extended exposure to goal/reward or skill-based review to exceed the benchmark. Across panels of the baseline, 12 of 13 skills were at/above the end-of-year benchmark on PSF and/or NWF, suggesting lower risk than predicted by middle-of-year screening. Due to increasing baseline responding, experimental control was limited; however, these results suggest that simple progress monitoring may help reduce false positives after screening. Future research on this hypothesis is needed.
ISSN:1534-5084
1938-7458
DOI:10.1177/15345084221091173