Screening classification errors carry asymmetric costs: false positives risk unnecessary intensive placement while false negatives delay early intervention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article argues that false positives (students incorrectly classified as at-risk) can lead to unnecessary Tier 2 or Tier 3 assignment, while false negatives (at-risk students classified as not-at-risk) may cause students to miss early intervention opportunities. → Keles 2025

Evidence¶

Keles 2025¶

Keles, S., ten Braak, D., Hagen, Å. M., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2025). Validity of Early-Grade Screening Tools in the Three Tier (RTI/MTSS) Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Literacy, Language, and Mathematics. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10077-5

q1 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Theoretical argument in the review's framing of screening accuracy (citing Compton et al., 2006, 2012): screening into at-risk/not-at-risk groups produces false positives and false negatives, with the review stating students "may miss out on early intervention opportunities". No empirical effect size is attached to this argument in the review.

"In contrast, false negatives are students determined to be not-at-risk when they subsequently achieve poor scores on a future criterion measure. In these cases, students may miss out on early intervention opportunities, making it more difficult to close skill gaps over time."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Overall false positive error rates are about 10 percent and false negative error rates about 20 percent for value-added performance classifications — related
• MAP Growth cut scores at the 30th percentile of national norms best identify Grade K-8 students in need of intensive intervention in reading and mathematics — related