ArticlePloS one2025
Predictive validity of early and mid-year literacy assessments for end-of-year word reading fluency.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explores the predictive validity of early and mid-year literacy assessments-Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Letter Sound Fluency (LSF), and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)-for end-of-year Word Reading Fluency (WRF) in kindergarten and grade 1 Arabic-speaking students. Using a longitudinal design, 412 students were assessed at three intervals (fall, mid-year, and year-end) to examine how these foundational literacy skills contribute to predicting WRF and identifying at-risk readers. Results from multiple regression analyses indicate that both LNF and LSF are significant predictors of end-of-year WRF across both fall and mid-year assessments, with mid-year measures demonstrating enhanced predictive accuracy. In contrast, PSF showed limited predictive value in comparison to LNF and LSF. Accuracy analyses revealed that mid-year assessments, particularly LNF and LSF, were more reliable in identifying at-risk students compared to fall assessments. Mid-year assessments correctly identified 64-73% of at-risk readers, emphasizing their value in early detection and intervention. These findings underline the importance of dynamic, multi-point assessments in improving educational practices and outcomes, particularly for students at risk of reading difficulties. The study highlights the critical role of foundational literacy skills in early reading development and provides actionable insights to enhance intervention strategies during key stages of literacy acquisition.
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.