Review of the early-identification literature indicates considerable problems related to describing screening results and determining when a procedure accurately identifies students believed to be at-risk. Several criteria are proposed in this article for determining and communicating screening results. These criteria, which are applied to a screening program for illustrative purposes, provide a context for judging prediction accuracy. It is argued that accuracy of prediction is of little value and cannot be considered sufficient unless the predictions lead to better educational opportunities for the students about whom they are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1982). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.
2.
BarnesK.E. (1982). Preschool screening. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
3.
EbelR.L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
EavesL.C.KendallD.C.CrichtonJ.U. (1974). The early identification of learning disabilities: A follow-up study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 632–638.
5.
FerindenW.E.JacobsenS.LindenN.J. (1970). Early identification of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 48–52.
6.
GlazzardM. (1980). Teacher rating and reading readiness as predictors of vocabulary and comprehension achievement in first, third, and fourth grade. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 85–88.
7.
KeoghB.K. (1977). Early ID: selective perception or perceptive selection?Academic Therapy, 12, 267–275.
8.
KeoghB.K.BeckerL.D. (1973). Early detection of learning problems: questions, cautions, and guidelines. Exceptional Children, 40, 5–11.
9.
LichensteinR. (1982). New instrument, old problem for early identification. Exceptional Children, 49, 70–72.
10.
LindsayG.A.WedellK. (1982). The early identification of educationally “at-risk” children revisited. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 212–217.
11.
LoeberR.DishionT. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68–99.
MeehlP.E.RosenA. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194–216.
14.
MercerC.D. (1983). Students with learning disabilities. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
15.
MercerC.D.AlgozzineB.TrifilettiJ. (1979). Early identification—an analysis of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 13–24.
16.
ReichmuthM. (1983). Evaluation of the predictive ability of four screening measures used in prekindergarten screening: A follow-up study. Unpublished specialist thesis, University of Northern Iowa, Ceder Falls, IA.
17.
SatzP.FletcherJ.M. (1979). Early screening tests: Some uses and abuses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 65–69.
18.
SechrestL. (1963). Incremental validity: a recommendation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 153–158.
19.
TaylorH.C.RussellJ.T. (1939). The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection. Discussion and tables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 565–578.
20.
WilsonB.HewettG. (1977, April). The identification of educationally handicapped children using existing information. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
21.
WigginsJ.S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
