ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Development and Evaluation of Orthographic Knowledge Awareness Scale for Children Aged 6-12 Years.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study primarily aimed to develop an orthographic knowledge awareness scale in Mandarin for children aged 6-12 years. Related factors affecting orthographic knowledge awareness in children were analyzed, and a basis for individualized intervention was provided to improve reading and writing. Methods: A conceptual framework for orthographic knowledge awareness in children aged 6-12 years was determined through a detailed reading of the literature on Chinese character orthography, combined with qualitative interviews of the target population and consultation with experts. The orthographic knowledge awareness scale initially consisted of three versions: for grades 1-2 (210 items), grades 3-4 (207 items), and grades 5-6 (220 items), accumulating a total of 637 items. The initial scale was then used for the study involving children aged 6-12 years in Maanshan City, Jiangsu Province. Various approaches to screening items were comprehensively used to determine the formal version of the orthographic knowledge awareness scale. The official scale was ultimately used to conduct the third round of surveys among 1,354 children aged 6-12 years in ordinary primary schools located in 5 cities in Jiangsu Province, namely, Changzhou, Lianyungang, Nantong, Xuzhou, and Yangzhou. The reliability, validity, and discriminating power of the formal scale were evaluated. Results: A total of 360 items were included in the formal version of the orthographic knowledge awareness scale. The formal scale was divided into three versions for grades 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6. Each grade version consisted of 120 items. The scale was composed of the stroke awareness test, radical awareness test, and left-right reversal test. The cumulative variance contribution rates of grades 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 were 82.47, 61.71, and 64.19%, respectively. The Cronbach's α coefficients of the three-grade version of the scale were 0.989, 0.946, and 0.938; the split-half reliability coefficients were 0.925, 0.766, and 0.847; and the test-retest reliability coefficients were 0.847, 0.895, and 0.8928, respectively. Conclusion: The proposed orthographic knowledge awareness scale for children aged 6-12 years exhibits good reliability and validity. The formal scale consisted of two dimensions: identification of left-right reversal at the stroke and radical levels and the left-right reversal at the whole character level. The two dimensions can more comprehensively reflect the ability of children to discriminate orthographic structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.