Screening for At-Risk Readers in a Response to Intervention Framework

312 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments? (2009, methodology): “However, the DIBELS screens are only moderately accurate in predicting which students will read satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily at the end of Grade 1 (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004; Jenkins et al., 2007; Riedel, 2007; Schatschneider, 2006).”
Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary (2011, background): “Although most research on universal screening is in the area of reading, there is also research support for the utility of universal screening in the areas of writing, math, and behavior (Jenkins et al., 2007).”
Technical Adequacy of Response to Intervention Decisions (2011, methodology): “Use of ROC analysis may be helpful in suggesting possible benchmark criteria, but only if sample sizes are greater than 200 (Leeflang, Moons, Reitsma, & Zwinderman, 2008) and if systematic replications are conducted to validate the ROC-derived cut scores (Jenkins et al., 2007).”