English-language measures of phonological processing, letter knowledge, and word and text reading validly identify which English learners need additional reading support¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2010: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Twenty-one studies demonstrated that phonological processing, letter and alphabetic knowledge, and word/text reading measures validly determine which English learners will benefit from typical classroom reading instruction and which need extra support. → Gersten 2007

Evidence¶

Gersten 2007¶

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/6

q3 · i? · review · r2

The panel's synthesis of screening validity studies with English learners, summarized in Recommendation 1. It reports that "Twenty-one studies demonstrated" the validity of the three measure types, and notes these measures meet American Psychological Association standards for valid screening instruments.

"Twenty-one studies demonstrated that three types of measures—phonological processing, letter and alphabetic knowledge, and reading of word lists or connected text—are valid means of determining which English learners are likely to benefit from typical classroom reading instruction and which children will require extra support"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Literacy screener benchmarks predict which grade 3 students will not meet MCAS ELA expectations, but not necessarily who will meet them — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge fluency are each uniquely related to both word reading and spelling in kindergartners — related
• Phoneme awareness is a stronger predictor of reading development than rhyme awareness — related
• Oral language measures of syntax, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary do not predict which English learners will struggle with learning to read — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)