[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-592686-105":59,"doc-detail-592686-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","screening-in-the-upper-elementary-grades-identifying-fourth-grade-students-at-risk-for-failing-the-state-reading-assessment","Screening in the Upper Elementary Grades - Identifying Fourth-Grade Students At-Risk for Failing the State Reading Assessment","","Study examines how well individual- and group-administered screening measures predict year-end performance on a state reading assessment in two states. Using a sample of 321 fourth graders, it evaluates word-level and text fluency plus reading comprehension assessed in fall. Group-administered reading comprehension yields the highest classification accuracy (74%–80%), yet no screener achieves optimal sensitivity and specificity. Logistic regression shows minimal added accuracy beyond the single comprehension measure, and ROC analyses set cut scores that keep sensitivity at .90, increasing false positives. Implications and limitations for upper elementary screening are discussed.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/screening-in-the-upper-elementary-grades-identifying-fourth-grade-students-at-risk-for-failing-the-state-reading-assessment/592686/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/screening-in-the-upper-elementary-grades-identifying-fourth-grade-students-at-risk-for-failing-the-state-reading-assessment/592686.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Mimi","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the study evaluate about screening measures in fourth grade?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It evaluates predictive validity and classification accuracy of both individual- and group-administered screening measures against students’ year-end state reading assessment performance.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which screening measure shows the highest classification accuracy?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"A group-administered reading comprehension test shows the highest classification accuracy, around 74%–80% for both outcomes.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why do ROC cut scores create many false positives?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Cut scores are chosen to maintain sensitivity at .90, which results in a large number of false positives.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},592686,1792188571,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},2336477974920,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Screening in the Upper Elementary Grades: Identifying Fourth-Grade Students At-Risk for Failing the State Reading Assessment  \nAssessment for Effective Intervention 2019, Vol. 44(3) 160–172  \n© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2018 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/1534508418758371](DOI: 10.1177/1534508418758371)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/1534508418758371)[aei.sagepub.com](aei.sagepub.com)  \nShawn C. Kent, PhD 1, Jeanne Wanzek, PhD2, and Joonmo Yun, PhD3  \nAbstract  \nThis study examined the predictive validity and classification accuracy of individual- and group-administered screening measures relative to student performance on a year-end state reading assessment in two states. A sample of 321 students was assessed in the areas of word-level and text fluency, as well as reading comprehension in the fall of fourth grade. For individual measures, a group-administered reading comprehension test exhibited the highest classification accuracy (74%–80%) for both outcomes though no screener demonstrated optimal sensitivity and specificity levels. Using a multivariate approach, logistic regression results revealed minimal to no increase in classification accuracy over the single comprehension measure. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses determined local cut scores to maintain sensitivity constant at .90, which resulted in a large number of false positives. The implications and limitations of these findings for screening at the upper elementary level are discussed.  \nKeywords  \nreading/literacy, screening/benchmarking, achievement assessment  \nAt their essence, multitiered systems of support, such as Response to Intervention (RtI), with a focus on identifying students in need of support and providing targeted, datadriven intervention provide a systematic framework designed to change the trajectory of reading outcomes for struggling readers at all levels (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006) . The foundation of successful implementation of RtI for ameliorating and preventing reading difficulties is the accurate and timely identification of students with or at-risk for reading difficulties that additional instruction/intervention can be provided (Glover & Albers, 2007) . As such, universal screening processes have become nearly  \nubiquitous in schools (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012) .  \nWhen considering the tools and procedures that are utilized in the universal screening process, it is imperative to strike a balance between consideration of the diagnostic accuracy and psychometric characteristics of specific measures and issues of practicality for schools; that is, the feasibility and efficiency of the administration of universal screening measures, processes for decision making, and prudent allocation of instructional resources. From the measurement perspective, effective screening tools demonstrate high levels of sensitivity in correctly identifying those students who will actually encounter difficulties, as well as high levels of specificity in the accurate identification of those who are  \nnot likely to demonstrate reading difficulties (Zhou, Obuchowski, & Obuchowski, 2002) . Ultimately, the goal is to maximize classification accuracy (CA), a summative measure of the overall proportion of students who were correctly identified as at-risk or not at-risk on a screening measure. If the goal of universal screening is to promote the early identification of reading difficulties (or potential reading difficulties), screening measures that detect a large proportion of at-risk students would be desirable so that appropriate remedial support can be provided to students to prevent further difficulties (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996) . With that in mind, researchers have argued that high levels of sensitivity are necessary for universal screening measures (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; ","cbCaij0HmkyFgiOS","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaij0HmkyFgiOS","pdf",427067,13,"English","# Abstract\n## Predictive validity and classification accuracy\n## Sensitivity, specificity, and ROC cut scores\n## Logistic regression findings\n## Implications and limitations","[{\"question\":\"What does the study evaluate about screening measures in fourth grade?\",\"answer\":\"It evaluates predictive validity and classification accuracy of both individual- and group-administered screening measures against students’ year-end state reading assessment performance.\"},{\"question\":\"Which screening measure shows the highest classification accuracy?\",\"answer\":\"A group-administered reading comprehension test shows the highest classification accuracy, around 74%–80% for both outcomes.\"},{\"question\":\"Why do ROC cut scores create many false positives?\",\"answer\":\"Cut scores are chosen to maintain sensitivity at .90, which results in a large number of false positives.\"}]","Screening in the Upper Elementary Grades - Identifying Fourth-Grade Students At-Risk for Failing the State Reading Assessment | PDF",1792075102,33]