Screening for reading problems: The utility of SEARCH

D Morrison1, P Mantzicopoulos, E Stone

  • 1University of California, San Francisco.

Annals of Dyslexia
|November 16, 2013
PubMed

Insights

The SEARCH screening tool shows 77% accuracy in predicting reading skills but over-identifies children. Many identified as at risk by SEARCH later achieved adequate reading skills.

Area of Science:

  • Developmental Psychology
  • Educational Psychology
  • Screening Tools in Education

Background:

  • Early identification of learning problems is crucial for timely intervention.
  • Screening tools aim to identify at-risk children for further assessment.
  • The SEARCH tool's efficacy in predicting reading difficulties requires validation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the predictive accuracy of the SEARCH screening tool for learning problems.
  • To determine if SEARCH accurately identifies kindergarten children at risk for reading difficulties.
  • To examine the relationship between SEARCH scores and information processing skills.

Main Methods:

  • 1107 kindergarten children were evaluated using the SEARCH screening tool.
  • Children were categorized based on preacademic achievement scores (below/above third stanine).
  • Reading tests were administered to a subset of at-risk children in first and second grade.

Main Results:

  • SEARCH identified 26% of children as at risk; accuracy in predicting reading skills was 77%.
  • Approximately 50% of children flagged by SEARCH demonstrated adequate reading skills.
  • At first and second grade, 39% and 66% of SEARCH-identified children, respectively, performed at grade level.
  • Children from higher socioeconomic status (SES) were less likely to be identified as at risk by SEARCH.

Conclusions:

  • The SEARCH tool has moderate accuracy but a notable over-identification rate for children at risk for learning problems.
  • A significant proportion of children identified as at risk by SEARCH achieve adequate reading skills, suggesting potential for false positives.
  • Further research is needed to refine screening methods and address potential socioeconomic biases in identification.