↓ Skip to main content

Collective screening tools for early identification of dyslexia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Collective screening tools for early identification of dyslexia
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01581
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga V. C. A. Andrade, Paulo E. Andrade, Simone A. Capellini

Abstract

Current response to intervention models (RTIs) favor a three-tier system. In general, Tier 1 consists of evidence-based, effective reading instruction in the classroom and universal screening of all students at the beginning of the grade level to identify children for early intervention. Non-responders to Tier 1 receive small-group tutoring in Tier 2. Non-responders to Tier 2 are given still more intensive, individual intervention in Tier 3. Limited time, personnel and financial resources derail RTI's implementation in Brazilian schools because this approach involves procedures that require extra time and extra personnel in all three tiers, including screening tools which normally consist of tasks administered individually. We explored the accuracy of collectively and easily administered screening tools for the early identification of second graders at risk for dyslexia in a two-stage screening model. A first-stage universal screening based on collectively administered curriculum-based measurements was used in 45 7 years old early Portuguese readers from 4 second-grade classrooms at the beginning of the school year and identified an at-risk group of 13 academic low-achievers. Collectively administered tasks based on phonological judgments by matching figures and figures to spoken words [alternative tools for educators (ATE)] and a comprehensive cognitive-linguistic battery of collective and individual assessments were both administered to all children and constituted the second-stage screening. Low-achievement on ATE tasks and on collectively administered writing tasks (scores at the 25th percentile) showed good sensitivity (true positives) and specificity (true negatives) to poor literacy status defined as scores ≤1 SD below the mean on literacy abilities at the end of fifth grade. These results provide implications for the use of a collectively administered screening tool for the early identification of children at risk for dyslexia in a classroom setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Linguistics 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,442,892
of 25,623,883 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,789
of 34,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,598
of 360,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#205
of 394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,623,883 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 394 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.