Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-6
A Comparison of Reading Screeners in Kindergarten: The Texas Primary Reading Inventory and Acadience Reading With English Learners and Monolingual English Speakers
Measuring and identifying risk for reading difficulties at the kindergarten level is necessary for providing intervention as early as possible. The purpose of this study was to examine concurrent validity evidence of two kindergarten reading screeners, Acadience Reading and Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), as well as diagnostic accuracy at different performance levels on the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Reading Cluster and across (N = 96) emergent bilingual and monolingual English learners in kindergarten. Findings indicated moderate correlations between Acadience Reading and TPRI with the WJ IV. Diagnostic accuracy results showed screening measures were inadequate when predicting WJ IV performance above 90 SS (standard score), but results improved for almost all measures and student groups when the threshold for performance was lowered to 80 SS. Acadience Reading Below Benchmark (AR BB) offered the lowest overall accuracy for emerging bilingual (EB) students. Implications for efficient and accurate use of reading screeners in schools are discussed.
BettsJ.ReschlyA.PickartM.HeistadD.SheranC.MarstonD. (2008). An examination of predictive bias for second grade reading outcomes from measures of early literacy skills in kindergarten with respect to English-language learners and ethnic subgroups. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.553
2.
BridgesM.CattsH. W. (2011). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 330–338.
3.
BurnsM. K.SilberglittB.ChristT. J.GibbonsK. A.Coolong-ChaffinM. (2016). Using oral reading fluency to evaluate response to intervention and to identify students not making sufficient progress. In YaacovR.CummingsK. D. (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 123–140). Springer.
ClemensN. H.SoohooM. M.WileyC. P.HsiaoY.-Y.EstrellaI.Allee-SmithP. J.YoonM. (2018). Advancing stage 2 research on measures for monitoring kindergarten reading progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688171
6.
CummingsK. D.SmolkowskiK.BakerD. L. (2021). Comparison of literacy screener risk selection between English proficient students and English learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(2), 96–109.
GamseB. C.JacobR. T.HorstM.BoulayB.UnluF. (2008). Reading first impact study: Final report (NCEE 2009-4038). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
10.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.ShanahanT.Linan-ThompsonS.CollinsP.ScarceR. (2007). IES study guide: Effective literacy and English language instruction English learners in the elementary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4011). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
11.
GloverT. A.AlbersC. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 117–135.
12.
GloverT. A.DiPernaJ. C. (2007). Service delivery for Response to Intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 526–540.
13.
GoffredaC. T.DiPernaJ. C.PedersenJ. A. (2009). Preventive screening for early readers: Predictive validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 539–552.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision- making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
16.
GrayJ. S.WarnockA. N.KaminskiR. A.GoodR. H. (2018). DIBELS next national norms 2014-2015 (Technical Report No. 23). Dynamic Measurement Group.
17.
GredlerG. R. (2004). Behavioral, social and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 585–587.
18.
HammerC. S.HoffE.UchikoshiY.GillandersC.CastroD. C.SandilosL. E. (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 715–733.
19.
HintzeJ. M.RyanA. L.StonerG. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the comprehensive test of phonological processing. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 541–556.
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.
22.
Keller-MargulisM. A.OchsS.ReidE. K.FaithE. L.SchandingG. T. (2019). Validity and diagnostic accuracy of early written expression screeners in kindergarten. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37, 539–552.
23.
Keller-MargulisM. A.ShapiroE. S.HintzeJ. M. (2008). Long term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37, 374–390.
24.
KettlerR. J.GloverT. A.AlbersC. A.Feeney-KettlerK. A. (2014). Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools. American Psychological Association.
25.
KilgusS. P.MetheS. A.MagginD. M.TomasulaJ. L. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (R-CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 377–405.
26.
KilgusS. P.von der EmbseN. P.AllenA. N.TaylorC. N.EklundK. (2018). Examining SAEBRS technical adequacy and the moderating influence of criterion type on cut score performance. Remedial and Special Education, 39(6), 377–388.
27.
LandryL. N.Keller-MargulisM. A.MattaM.KimH.GonzalezJ. E.SchandingG. T.Jr. (2021). Long-term validity and diagnostic accuracy of kindergarten acadience reading with English learners. School Psychology Review, 51, 454–467.
NelsonJ. M. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Texas primary reading inventory for early reading screening in kindergarten. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 45–53.
30.
NewellK. W.CoddingR. S.FortuneT. W. (2020). Oral Reading fluency as a screening tool with English learners. Psychology in the Schools, 57, 1208–1239.
31.
OhD.HaagerD.WindmeullerM. (2007). A longitudinal study predicting reading success for English-language learners from kindergarten to grade 1. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 10(1–2), 107–124.
32.
PartanenM.SiegelL. S. (2014). Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 27(4), 665–684.
33.
ScheffelD.LeflyD.HouserJ. (2016). The predictive utility of DIBELS reading assessment for reading comprehension among third grade English language learners and English speaking children. Reading Improvement, 53(2), 87–100.
34.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.MatherN.WendlingB. J.LaForteE. M. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Riverside Publishing.
35.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO. M.SimmonsL.JohnsonC.CrevecoeurY. C. (2011). Effects of supplemental reading interventions in authentic contexts: A comparison of kindergarteners’ response. Exceptional Children, 77, 207–228.
36.
Texas Education Agency, & University of Texas System. (2013). TPRI Early Reading Assessment [FAQs administration & scoring]. http://www.tpri.org
37.
VanderheydenA. M. (2011). Technical adequacy of response to intervention decisions. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 335–350.
38.
VanderwoodM. L.LinklaterD.HealyK. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 5–17.
39.
WendlingB. J.SchrankF. A. (2015). Overview of the WJ IV interpretation and instructional interventions program (Woodcock-Johnson IV Assessment Service Bulletin No. 5). Rolling Meadows, IL.
40.
Yesil-DagliU. (2010). Predicting ELL students’ beginning first grade English oral reading fluency from initial kindergarten vocabulary, letter naming, and phonological awareness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.001
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.
