ArticlePerspectives of the ASHA special interest groups2023
The Utility of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills as a Literacy Screener for Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
Article in Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (a) compare outcomes between children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and children with typical hearing (CTH) on the DIBELS Eighth Edition assessment and (b) compare outcomes of children who are DHH on the DIBELS to other standardized literacy assessments. Method: Participants included 19 children who are DHH and 19 CTH in kindergarten or first grade. All participants who are DHH had bilateral hearing loss and used listening technology. The participants completed timed and untimed standardized literacy assessments. Data were analyzed using independent samples t-test, chi-square analysis, and Pearson correlation analysis. Results: Only one of five subtests on the DIBELS, the Oral Reading Fluency subtest, revealed a significant difference in scores between children who are DHH and CTH. Despite this difference, there were no differences in the distribution of risk between the groups. The DIBELS scores of children who are DHH strongly correlated to their scores on other standardized literacy assessments. Conclusions: The results indicate that the DIBELS is an adequate measure to screen early literacy skills for children who are DHH. The DHH and CTH groups differ in reading comprehension using a standardized measure, however, the DIBELS does not measure this skill. Further assessments of reading comprehension along with the DIBELs are recommended when assessing these skills in children who are DHH.
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.