What is a characteristic of a reading screener

Universal screening is a critical first step in identifying students who are at risk for experiencing reading difficulties and who might need more instruction. Screening should take place at the beginning of each school year in kindergarten through grade 2.

What is a Screener? Universal Screeners are brief, grade-level, reliable and valid assessments. These assessments evaluate current skills, predict future achievement, and help identify students who may need additional support due to missing skills necessary to access grade level curriculum and instruction.

Table 1: Screening Measures for Grades 1 through 3

What is a characteristic of a reading screener? To Identify “red flags” or predictive variables of future reading performance.

What is an example of universal screening? The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is one example of a universal screener. DIBELS assesses students’ reading skills through short, one-minute assessments.

What is a universal screener? A universal screener is a brief assessment that is typically administered three times per year – fall, winter, and spring. All students on a campus participate in the screening process, including those identified as needing special education or gifted services.

Diagnostic assessments are used to aid educators in understanding the causes for student performance, i.e. the learning strengths and needs that underlie student performance on a universal screening or other assessment. They help teachers identify where a student’s understanding breaks down.

The main difference between a screening and diagnostic test is the purpose of the test. Screening tests are primarily used for early detection of disease or risk factors whereas diagnostic tests are used to establish the presence or absence of disease.

Screening- The purpose of a screening assessment is to identify students who are at-risk for reading difficulties. Identifying the students early on who are likely to struggle with learning to read is important as we can then develop intervention plans that, hopefully, PREVENT a life-long reading deficit.

It is an online, adaptive screener which means that it adapts to the child’s level of skill. It can also be used as a diagnostic tool for identifying literacy difficulties, rather than just for screening for dyslexia.

Screening and assessment provide valuable information about each child’s interests, strengths, and needs. Screening gives a snapshot of whether the child’s development is on track. Assessment is an ongoing process that includes observation and provides information about development over time.

Screening, diagnosing, and progress monitoring are essential to making sure that all students become fluent readers — and the words-correct per-minute (WCPM) procedure can work for all three. Here’s how teachers can use it to make well-informed and timely decisions about the instructional needs of their students.

There are four main types of reading assessments that are used in schools: Screening, Diagnostic, Progress Monitoring, Summative.

The most common example of an assessment for fluency is to ask a student to read a passage aloud for one minute. Words that are skipped or pronounced incorrectly are not counted. The number of correct words read is counted and this total equals a student’s oral reading fluency rate.

The Cloze procedure is one tool that can be used to quickly measure the reading proficiency of students. In a Cloze procedure, some words in a text are omitted and replaced with blank lines. Users are asked to identify and fill-in the missing words. The goal is to identify the exact word not a synonym.

One type of useful screening assessment involves curriculum-based measures (CBMs). Examples include DIBELS Next or Aimsweb. Diagnostic assessments are used to assess specific skills or components of reading such as phonemic awareness, phonics skills, and fluency.

Outcomes Assessment has three stages

• Define the most important goals for students to achieve as a result of participating in an academic experience (outcomes)
• Evaluate how well students are actually achieving those goals (assessment)
• Use the results to improve the academic experience (closing the loop)

Click the "References" link above to hide these references.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA Publications.

Badian, N. A. (1994). Preschool prediction: orthographic and phonological skills, and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 44(1), 3-25.

Baker, S., Gersten R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching practice and the reading growth of first-grade English learners: Validation of an observation instrument. Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 199-219.

Baker, S. K., & Baker, D. L. (2008). English learners and response to intervention: Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond. New York: Springer.

Catts, H. (1991). Early identification of dyslexia: Evidence from a follow-up study of speech-language impaired children. Annals of Dyslexia, 41(1), 163-177.

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: a two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394-409.

Felton, R. H., & Pepper, P. P. (1995). Early identification and intervention of phonological deficits in kindergarten and early elementary children at risk for reading disability. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 405-414.

Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98-108.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7-21.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-29.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001a). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O'Connor, R. (2001b). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251-267.

Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2008). Reading comprehension and vocabulary instruction: Results of an observation study of first grade classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Asheville, NC, July 10-12, 2008.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance of 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(3), 257-288.

Jenkins, J. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the Conference on Response to Intervention as Learning Disabilities Identification, sponsored by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.

Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582-600.

Jenkins, J. R., & O'Connor, R. E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, and D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99-149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children's reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 230-239.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

O'Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(2), 159-197.

Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75-119). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Schatschneider, C. (2006). Reading difficulties: Classification and issues of prediction. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Regional Conference, San Diego, CA.

Speece, D., & Case, L. (2001). Classification in context: an alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735-749.

Speece, D., Mills, C., Ritchey, K., & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 223-233.

Technical report: Texas primary reading inventory (1999 Edition). Retrieved from: //www.tpri.org/Documents/19981999TechnicalReport.pdf.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7-26. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.