U.S. elementary schools administer reading screeners to identify students in need of remedial instruction. However, the administration of additional assessments comes with a cost. It is unclear the extent to which multiple types of reading screeners warrant the increase in resources that could be used for instruction. This study compared cost–accuracy ratios for three types of reading screeners in Grade 3: curriculum-based measurement (Acadience), computer adaptive assessment (Star), informal reading inventory (Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System), and the cost–accuracy of using all three in conjunction. We used classification and regression tree analysis to identify local cut-scores and identify how measures could be combined to maximize classification accuracy. Results suggested that oral reading fluency score (Acadience) yielded the best cost–accuracy ratio, but the combination of Star and oral reading fluency identified important instructional groups. Cost tables provide additional insight to schools on critical decision points for choosing and implementing reading screeners.
AdlofS. M.HoganT. P. (2019). If we don’t look, we won’t see: Measuring language development to inform literacy instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219839075
2.
BarrettC. A.PasE. T.Lindstrom JohnsonS. (2020). A cost analysis of the innovation–decision process of an evidence-based practice in schools. School Mental Health, 12(3), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09372-z
3.
BlachmanB. A.SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.MurrayM. S.MungerK. A.VaughnM. G. (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later?Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033663
4.
ClemensN. H.Keller-MargulisM. A.ScholtenT.YoonM. (2016). Screening assessment within a multi-tiered system of support: Current practices, advances, and next steps. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 187–213). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_12
5.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.ChoE.CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448
6.
ConnorC. M. (2019). Using technology and assessment to personalize instruction: Preventing reading problems. Prevention Science, 20(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0842-9
CreeA.KayA.StewardJ. (2012). The economic and social cost of illiteracy: A snapshot of illiteracy in a global context. World Literacy Foundation. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/321997
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.FoormanB. R.SchatschneiderC. (2021). Early detection of dyslexia risk: Development of brief, teacher-administered screens. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(3), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720931870
12.
FoormanB. R.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC. (2015). Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) Reading Assessments (FRA) kindergarten to Grade 2 [Technical manual]. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580134
13.
FoormanB. R.PetscherY.StanleyC.TruckenmillerA. (2017). Latent profiles of reading and language and their association with standardized reading outcomes in kindergarten through tenth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(3), 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237597
14.
FordM. P.OpitzM. F. (2008). A national survey of guided reading practices: What we can learn from primary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802332895
15.
FountasI.PinnellG. S. (2016). Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (3rd ed.). Heinemann.
HeritageM. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Council of Chief State School Officers.
20.
HollandsF. M.Hanisch-CerdaB.LevinH. M.BelfieldC. R.MenonA.ShandR.PanY.BakirI.ChengH. (2015). Costout—The CBCSE Cost Tool Kit. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.costtoolkit.org/
21.
HollandsF. M.PanY.KiefferM. J.HolmesV. R.WangY.EscuetaM.HeadL.MurogaA. (2021). Comparing evidence on the effectiveness of reading resources from expert ratings, practitioner judgements, and research repositories. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 18, 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16366418828079
22.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087919
23.
KiernanM.KraemerH. C.WinklebyM. A.KingA. C.TaylorC. B. (2001). Do logistic regression and signal detection identify different subgroups at risk? Implications for the design of tailored interventions. Psychological Methods, 6(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.1.35
24.
KlingbeilD. A.McComasJ. J.BurnsM. K.HelmanL. (2015). Comparison of predictive validity and diagnostic accuracy of screening measures of reading skills. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21839
25.
KlingbeilD. A.NelsonP. M.Van NormanE. R.BirrC. (2017). Diagnostic accuracy of multivariate universal screening procedures for reading in upper elementary grades. Remedial and Special Education, 38(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517697446
26.
LevinH. M.McEwanP. J.BelfieldC.BowdenA. B.ShandR. (2018). Economic evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis (3rd ed.). Sage.
PetscherY.FoormanB. R.TruckenmillerA. J. (2017). The impact of item dependency on the efficiency of testing and reliability of student scores from a computer adaptive assessment of reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(2), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1178361
ProvostM. C.LambertM. A.BabkieA. M. (2010). Informal Reading Inventories: Creating teacher-designed literature-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(4), 211–220.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS/STAT® 14.1 user’s guide.
35.
SchatschneiderC.PetscherY.WilliamsK. M. (2008). How to evaluate a screening process: The vocabulary of screening and what educators need to know. In JusticeL. M.VukelichC. (Eds.), Achieving excellence in preschool literacy instruction (pp. 304–316). Guilford Press.
36.
TortorelliL. S. (2019). Reading rate in informational text: Norms and implications for theory and practice in the primary grades. Reading Psychology, 40(3), 293–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2019.1621011
37.
TruckenmillerA. J.BrehmerJ. S. (2021). Making the most of tier 2 intervention: What decisions are made in successful studies?Reading and Writing Quarterly, 37(3), 240–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1768612
38.
VanDerHeydenA. M. (2013). Universal screening may not be for everyone: Using a threshold model as a smarter way to determine risk. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 402–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087462
39.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BurnsM. K.BonifayW. (2018). Is more screening better? The relationship between frequent screening, accurate decisions, and reading proficiency. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0017.V47-1
40.
VanMeverenK.HulacD.Wollersheim-SherveyS. (2020). Universal screening methods and models: Diagnostic accuracy of reading assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(4), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418819797
41.
WainerH.DoransN. J.FlaugherR.GreenB. F.MislevyR. J. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605931
42.
WaymanM.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020401
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
