ArticleScientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading2023
Exploring the Machine Learning Paradigm in Determining Risk for Reading Disability.
Article in Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 2023. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Researchers have developed a constellation model of decoding-related reading disabilities (RD) to improve the RD risk determination. The model's hallmark is its inclusion of various RD indicators to determine RD risk. Classification methods such as logistic regression (LR) might be one way to determine RD risk within the constellation model framework. However, some issues may arise with applying the logistic regression method (e.g., multicollinearity). Machine learning techniques, such as random forest (RF), might assist in overcoming these limitations. They can better deal with complex data relations than traditional approaches. We examined the prediction performance of RF and compared it against LR to determine RD risk. Method: The sample comprised 12,171 students from Florida whose third-grade RD risk was operationalized using the constellation model with one, two, three, or four RD indicators in first and second grade. Results: Results revealed that LR and RF performed on par in accurately predicting RD risk. Regarding predictor importance, reading fluency was consistently the most critical predictor for RD risk. Conclusion: Findings suggest that RF does not outperform LR in RD prediction accuracy in models with multiple linearly related predictors. Findings also highlight including reading fluency in early identification batteries for later RD determination.
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.