Screening tools in the Three Tier model show a moderate pooled correlation with academic achievement outcomes (r = .51), with very high heterogeneity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Across 13 studies and 67 effect sizes, screening and progress monitoring tools correlate moderately with concurrent and predictive academic achievement outcomes (r = .51, 95% CI [.35, .64], p = .001), with very high heterogeneity. → 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

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Meta-analysis using a CHE model with RVE of 67 effect sizes from 13 validation studies of screening tools in ECEC through grade 2, reporting a "moderate overall pooled effect size for correlations ( r = .51, 95% CI [.35, .64], p = .001)". Heterogeneity was very high (Q(66) = 7579.60, p < .001; 95 PI [−.31, .89]).

"Using a correlated-hierarchical effects robust variance estimation (CHE-RVE) model, results indicated a moderate overall pooled effect size for correlations ( r = .51, 95% CI [.35, .64], p = .001). However, this estimate should be interpreted cautiously, as heterogeneity was very high."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• DIBELS is the most frequently used screening tool for tier assignment, and literacy is the most assessed domain — related
• Screening domain is a significant moderator of validity: literacy-literacy correlations (r = .55) exceed language-literacy (r = .38) and mathematics/literacy-achievement (r = .27) — related
• Very few studies (18 of 127) provide validity data for screening tools used in tier assignment, and none test whether screening itself improves achievement — related
• Sensitivity and specificity of Three Tier screening tools vary widely, and no studies report language-domain-only accuracy — related
• Effect sizes for gender differences in L2 achievement are highly heterogeneous across studies (I² = 89.82%) — related