PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Wood, Emily
AU  - Biggs, Kereisha
AU  - Molnar, Monika
TI  - Concurrent and predictive validity of dynamic assessments of word reading in young children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2022.09.19.22279942
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.09.19.22279942
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/27/2022.09.19.22279942.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/27/2022.09.19.22279942.full
AB  - Early evaluation of word reading skills is an important step in understanding and predicting children’s future literacy abilities. Traditionally, word reading evaluations are conducted using ‘static’ assessments (SA), which measure a child’s acquired knowledge and are prone to floor effects. Additionally, many of these tools are developed exclusively for English monolinguals, and therefore cannot be used equitably to evaluate the abilities of bilingual children. Dynamic assessment (DA), which evaluates the ability to learn a skill, is a potentially more equitable alternative. To establish that use of DAs is a valid alternative to traditional SAs, their concurrent agreement with gold standard SA measures and their predictive agreement with later word reading outcomes should be considered. In line with this, the primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the concurrent and predictive validity of DAs of word reading skills. Two secondary objectives are (i) to address which types of word reading DAs (phonological awareness, sound-symbol knowledge, or decoding) demonstrate the strongest relationships with equivalent concurrent static measures and later word reading outcomes, and (ii) to consider for which populations, defined by language status (monolingual vs. bilingual vs. mixed) and reading status (typically developing vs. at-risk vs. mixed) these DAs are valid. Thirty-four studies from 32 papers were identified through searching 5 databases, and the grey literature. Included studies provided a correlation between a DA and concurrent SA, or a DA and a later word reading outcome measure. Regarding concurrent validity, we observed a strong relationship between DAs and SAs in general (r=.60); however, subgroup analyses indicate that DAs of decoding (r=.54) and phonological awareness (r=.73) measures demonstrate greater strength of correlation with their static counterparts, compared to DAs of sound-symbol knowledge (r=.34). In terms of predictive validity, we observed a similarly strong relationship between DAs and word reading outcome measures (r=.57), independently of the type of measure. Subgroup analyses conducted based on participant language status suggested that there are significant differences between mean effect sizes for monolingual, bilingual and mixed language groups in terms of DAs’ concurrent validity with SAs, but no significant differences for predictive validity with word reading outcome measures. There were also no significant differences between mean effect sizes for at-risk, typically developing, or mixed groups in terms of DAs concurrent validity with SAs or predictive validity with word reading outcome measures. Results provide preliminary evidence to suggest that DAs of phonological awareness and decoding skills are a valid alternative to SAs of equivalent constructs and are valid for the future prediction of word reading outcomes across population groups regardless of their language or reading status.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis 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 E. Wood, by a University of Toronto Excellence Award, awarded to K. Biggs, and by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant awarded to Dr. M. Molnar (RGPIN-2019-06523).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors