Only four screeners demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Only four screeners met the sensitivity and specificity acceptability thresholds for identifying children with or at-risk of MLD. → Laura A. Outhwaite 2024
Evidence¶
Laura A. Outhwaite 2024¶
Laura A. Outhwaite, Pirjo Aunio, Jaimie Ka Yu Leung, Jo Van Herwegen. (2024). Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09950-6
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Synthesis of diagnostic accuracy evidence for screeners against the acceptability thresholds of sensitivity ≥ .90 and specificity ≥ .70 (Table 1). The review reports that ten screeners considered diagnostic accuracy with large variations in sensitivity and specificity.
"Diagnostic accuracy was also considered in ten screeners. However, there were large variations in the reported sensitivity and specificity, with only four screeners meeting the acceptability thresholds"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A pre-registered systematic review identified 41 mathematical assessments and 25 screeners evaluated for psychometric properties in children aged 0–8 years — related
- Only one mathematical assessment and one screener (NSS) met the acceptability threshold for predictive validity — related
- Definitions of developmental dyscalculia vary widely across studies, with diagnostic cutoffs ranging from below the 3rd to below the 25th percentile — related
- Recommended MAP Growth screening cut scores yield sensitivity, specificity, and lower-bound AUC of at least 0.8 for most grades and terms — related
- Only 15 of the identified measurement tools met common acceptability thresholds for more than two areas of psychometric evidence — a broader claim this one bears on
- Included studies show considerable variation in the cut-off criteria used to identify students with co-occurring mathematics and reading difficulties — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
four-screeners-acceptable-diagnostic-accuracy |
title |
Only four screeners demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties |
description |
Only four screeners demonstrated acceptable diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing children with or at-risk of mathematical learning difficulties |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — laura-a-outhwaite-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.