Journal of Pediatric Psychology 9(2) pp. 193-203, 1984
© 1984 Society of Pediatric Psychology
research-article |
Test-Based Versus Teacher-Based Predictions of Academic Achievement: A Three-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up1
Developmental Neuropsychology Research Section, Texas Research Institute of Mental Sciences Houston, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California Los Angeles
2All correspondence should be sent to Jack M. Fletcher, Developmental Neuropsychology, Texas Research Institute of Mental Sciences, 1300 Moursund, Texas Medical Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
The predictive validity and utility of two different kindergarten screening approaches were compared in a large sample of white males followed longitudinally from kindergarten to Grade 2. Predictions of reading achievement to the end of Grade 2 revealed comparable overall hit rates for the test-based and teacher-based approaches. However, the two approaches yielded different conditional (posterior) probabilities for predictions of high vs. low risk status. Teacher-based predictions were characterized by low false positive rates and high false negative rates. While predictions of high risk were highly accurate (p = .86), they were seldom made, which resulted in teachers missing 87% of the severely disabled readers. In contrast, test-based predictions were characterized by higher false positive rates and lower false negative rates. While predictions of high risk were less accurate (p = . 71), the screening battery identified a much greater proportion of the high-risk children, missing only 32% of the severely disabled readers. Combining teacher-based and test-based predictions yielded results that were not very different from test-based prediction alone. These results highlight some of the issues concerning validity and utility that must be considered in evaluating different screening approaches in early identification.
Key words: prediction; learning disabilities; prevention; teacher observation.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. L. Speece Hitting the Moving Target Known as Reading Development: Some Thoughts on Screening Children for Secondary Interventions J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2005; 38(6): 487 - 493. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. D. Ritchey and D. L. Speece Early Identification of Reading Disabilities: Current Status and New Directions Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2004; 29(4): 13 - 24. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. T. Teisl, M. M. M. Mazzocco, and G. F. Myers The Utility of Kindergarten Teacher Ratings for Predicting Low Academic Achievement in First Grade J Learn Disabil, May 1, 2001; 34(3): 286 - 293. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Flynn and M. H. Rahbar Kindergarten Screening for Risk of Reading Failure Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, March 1, 1998; 16(1): 15 - 35. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|