東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

An evaluation of universal screening...

Hills, Kimberly Joy.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

An evaluation of universal screening measures in reading.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	An evaluation of universal screening measures in reading./
Author:	Hills, Kimberly Joy.
Description:	118 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-04, Section: B, page: 2336.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International66-04B.
Subject:	Psychology, Psychometrics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3173162
ISBN:	9780542102202

An evaluation of universal screening measures in reading.
Hills, Kimberly Joy.

An evaluation of universal screening measures in reading. - 118 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-04, Section: B, page: 2336.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Carolina, 2005.

New federal initiatives and reports are calling attention to the importance of conducting universal screenings in the initial years of students' schooling and providing early intervention to students whose performance is discrepant from their peers. The current identification system of teacher referral and special education evaluation using an Intra-Individual Achievement Discrepancy (IAD) model is not an effective means of early identification. Because a significant discrepancy is needed between student's ability (IQ) and achievement scores, the IAD model rarely is able to identify students early in their academic career when intervention would be most effective so instead students must "wait to fail." Identifying efficient and valid universal screening measures is thus a critical issue in education.

ISBN: 9780542102202Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017742
Psychology, Psychometrics.

An evaluation of universal screening measures in reading.
LDR:03124nmm 2200313 4500 001 1822422
005 20061129132709.5
008 130610s2005 eng d
020 $a 9780542102202
035 $a (UnM)AAI3173162
035 $a AAI3173162
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Hills, Kimberly Joy. $3 1911568
245 1 3 $a An evaluation of universal screening measures in reading.
300 $a 118 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-04, Section: B, page: 2336.
500 $a Director: Scott Ardoin.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Carolina, 2005.
520 $a New federal initiatives and reports are calling attention to the importance of conducting universal screenings in the initial years of students' schooling and providing early intervention to students whose performance is discrepant from their peers. The current identification system of teacher referral and special education evaluation using an Intra-Individual Achievement Discrepancy (IAD) model is not an effective means of early identification. Because a significant discrepancy is needed between student's ability (IQ) and achievement scores, the IAD model rarely is able to identify students early in their academic career when intervention would be most effective so instead students must "wait to fail." Identifying efficient and valid universal screening measures is thus a critical issue in education.
520 $a The primary purpose of the current study was to evaluate the validity of RR and R-CBM, two different universal screening measures, by examining each measures' relationship to students overall reading achievement as measured by the Woodcock Johnson-III reading subtests (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) after accounting for intelligence, age, and grade. In addition, the current study evaluated the differences between using challenging versus similar level R-CBM probes for universal screening. Finally, the present study extends previous research in the area of teacher ratings by comparing the precision of teacher judgments of accuracy versus fluency on both R-CBM and RR measures.
520 $a Overall results indicated that both R-CBM and RR significantly related to students' overall reading achievement as indicated by the WJ-III . While both R-CBM and RR accounted for a significant amount of variance in students' reading achievement, R-CBM was a stronger predictor of reading achievement. Comparisons of similar versus challenging R-CBM passages indicated no significant differences between passages' relationship with reading achievement. Finally, analyses of teacher ratings indicated that teachers may be able to recognize relative differences in level of performance across students, however, they tend to be less accurate at predicting specific levels of student oral reading fluency.
590 $a School code: 0202.
650 4 $a Psychology, Psychometrics. $3 1017742
650 4 $a Education, Reading. $3 1017790
650 4 $a Education, Tests and Measurements. $3 1017589
690 $a 0632
690 $a 0535
690 $a 0288
710 2 0 $a University of South Carolina. $3 1017477
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 66-04B.
790 1 0 $a Ardoin, Scott, $e advisor
790 $a 0202
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2005
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3173162