Abstract
Dynamic assessments (DAs) of word reading skills demonstrate strong criterion reference validity with word reading measures (WRMs). However, DAs vary in the skills they assess, their format and administration method, and the type of words and symbols used in test items. These characteristics may have implications on assessment validity. To compare validity of DAs of word reading skills on these factors of interest, a systematic search of five databases and the grey literature was conducted. We identified 35 studies that met the inclusion criteria of evaluating participants aged 4-10, using a DA of word reading skills and reporting a Pearson’s correlation coefficient as an effect size. A random effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation and subgroup analyses by DA characteristics was conducted. There were no significant differences in mean effect size based on administration method (computer vs. in-person) or symbol type (familiar vs. novel). However, DAs that evaluate phonological awareness or decoding (vs. sound-symbol knowledge), those that use a graduated prompt format (vs. test-teach-retest), and DAs that use nonwords (vs. real words) demonstrated significantly stronger correlations with WRMs. These results inform selection of DAs in clinical and research settings, and development of novel, valid DAs of word reading skills.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This systematic review and meta-analysis is funded by a Canada Graduate Scholarship-Master's grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, at the Rehabilitation Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, awarded to EW, by a University of Toronto Excellence Award, awarded to KB and by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant awarded to MM (RGPIN-2019-06523).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
This version of the manuscript has been revised to update the statistical analyses. Previous versions used one effect size per study, the current version uses robust variance estimation and multiple effect sizes per study.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://osf.io/bcghx/
