Carolina Melo, Pelusa Orellana, Jill Fitzgerald, Kattia Muñoz Dialect: An Adaptive Reading Assessment to Diagnose Spanish Reading Difficulties in Grades K-4th Carolina Melo, Pelusa Orellana, Jill Fitzgerald, Kattia Muñoz Acknowledegements?? NCRECE? Becas Chile? Uandes? INTRODUCTION LOGIC MODEL Predictive Validity: 22% of the variance in first graders’ silent reading comprehension (Dialect 1) was explained by students’ scores in Dialect 2 in Kindergarten (N=366). The strongest predictor was alphabet knowledge. 23% of the variance in second graders’ silent reading comprehension (Dialect 1) was explained by students’ scores in Dialect 2 in Kindergarten (N=817). The strongest predictors were alphabet knowledge and concept of print. Figure 1. Dialect 1 Lexile measures, by grade (N=142) Timely diagnosis and intervention can prevent reading difficulties, and early reading intervention can reduce the need for remedial programs (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, Ortlieb, 2012). Not all struggling readers are alike (Swanson, Howard, & Sáez, 2006). Differentiating reading instruction on the basis of strengths and needs can facilitate accommodation and adaptations that allow all children to reach their reading goals (Tomlinson, 1999). Most children identified with reading difficulties in elementary school will have problems in later grades if there is no adequate intervention (Juel, 1988; Boscardin, Muthén, Davis, & Baker, 2008). 30% of Chilean students lack basic comprehension skills (OECD, 2009). Grounded in Cunningham’s (1983) whole-to-part model of reading. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Can a technology-based reading diagnosis platform capture Spanish readers’ ability in comprehension and other reading subprocesses with validity and reliability? Can the Spanish Lexile Framework adequately determine Chilean readers’ ability using Lexile measures? WHAT IS DIALECT? Dialect is an adaptive reading assessment designed to diagnose Spanish reading difficulties. It is an almost entirely self-administered test . Presents a significant advantage in contexts where classrooms have more than 40 students, where there are no reading specialists, or where teachers do not have expertise in reading diagnosis. Dialect was created to help teachers identify their students’ needs in reading development, and provide support to target more effective instructional practices. Students sitting in front of a computer or tablet listen to audio instructions and complete the assessments in approximately 40 minutes with minimum adult intervention. Responses are registered and wirelessly delivered to a platform from which they are downloaded immediately once the assessment is completed. Researchers at the university analyze students’ scores and write group and individual reports which are then sent to schools, which include, among other information, a Lexile measure per child. Lexile measures are extremely valuable to adequately match readers to texts. Teachers can access each child’s scores and interpretation with suggestions for instructional decisions in a week or less. Dialect can be administered for screening at the beginning of the school year, as well as at the end of every year to track progress CONCLUSIONS Validity, reliability , predictability Dialect is an innovating tool that has the potential of helping students develop their reading abilities and prevent later difficulties, by providing teachers with timely and relevant information that can shape instruction. Reliability: Internal consistency for Dialect 1 was calculated in a small study in the Fall of 2012 (N= 142). The alpha coefficient estimate was .97. Content validity: Review of comprehension items using Spanish Lexile Analyzer. Construct validity: Moderate correlations with other tests measuring reading comprehension (Anastasi, 1982) in Spanish (Table 1). Developmental nature of Dialect scores (Figure 1). Table 1. Correlations between Dialect 1 and other measures of comprehension (N=119). ________________________________________________________________ Test Name Correlation with Dialect 1 Lexile Measure Vocabulary .655** Knowledge of print .569** Phoneme segmentation .560** Alphabet knowledge .524** Word reading .745** __________________________________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for Dialect comes from Corfo Grants 11BPC 10139 (2011) and 15VEIID-45762 (2015). References Boscardin,C., Muthén, B., Francis, D. & Baker, E.L. (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (1), pp. 192-208 Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255. National Reading Panel:Report of the Subgroups (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC. Ortlieb, E. (2012). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 395-400. Snow, C., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. PISA Swanson, H.L., Howard, C.B., & Sáez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 252-269.   Contact: Micaela Buraschi (mburaschi@uandes.cl)