Teleassessment can overestimate the risk of learning disability in first and second grade of primary school

• Published in: Italian journal of pediatrics Vol. 51; no. 1; pp. 40 - 11
• Main Authors: Fontolan, Stefania, Franceschini, Sandro, Bortolozzo, Marisa, Dui, Linda Greta, Ferrante, Simona, Termine, Cristiano
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 11.02.2025; BMC
• Subjects: Achievement tests; Child; Childrens health; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive ability; Cross-sectional studies; Educational Measurement - methods; Evaluation methodologies; Female; Humans; Influence; Intervention; Learning difficulties; Learning disabilities; Learning Disabilities - diagnosis; Learning Disabilities - epidemiology; Male; Neuropsychological Tests; Neuropsychology; Primary school; Reading comprehension; Remote assessment; Risk Assessment; Schools; Test modality comparison; Writing; Evaluation methodologies; Learning difficulties; Primary school; Remote assessment; Test modality comparison
• ISSN: 1720-8424; 1824-7288; 1824-7288
• DOI: 10.1186/s13052-025-01881-4

Early administration of reading, writing and math standardised tests allows us to assess the risk of developing a learning disorder and to plan a specific intervention. The ease of access to technological tools and past pandemic restrictions have led to the abandonment of face-to-face assessment in favour of teleassessment methods. Although these kinds of assessments sometimes seem comparable in the literature, their equivalence is not clearly defined. The first aim of our research was to test the comparability of the two modalities using a complete battery of neuropsychological tests. Second, we addressed whether the administration order could influence performance. Using a within-subject sample design, we compared face-to-face and teleassessment performance in reading, writing and math tasks in 64 children attending first and second year of primary school. Teleassessment scores were lower than face-to-face; math tests weighted on difference. Differences were mitigated by previous experience with face-to-face modality. Although there was considerable overlap between the two administration methods, teleassessment could lead to overestimation of the risk for learning disorders.