Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668284›Full record

ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2025

Determinants to implementing a new early literacy screener: Barriers and facilitators.

Stephanie Tatel, Laura Jo Darcy, Emily J Solari, Carlin Conner, Latisha Hayes, Latara Lampkin, Jamie DeCoster, Katie Wilburn, Cassidi Richmond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of dyslexia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stephanie TatelDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. st3r@virginia.edu.ORCID 0009-0005-6909-1056
Laura Jo DarcyDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-2017-3009
Emily J SolariDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8498-9834
Carlin ConnerDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9790-9047
Latisha HayesDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-1465
Latara LampkinFlorida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-3120-2723
Jamie DeCosterDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9751-6051
Katie WilburnDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-3190-6095
Cassidi RichmondDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7854-5471

Funding

THE FLORIDA LONGITUDINAL STUDYP50HD052120 · NICHD · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CHRIS W SCHATSCHNEIDER · 2006 to 2026
$31.7M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD052120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early literacy screening is critical for identifying students at risk for reading difficulties and enabling timely intervention. However, the implementation of new screening tools often encounters significant barriers that hinder effective adoption. This mixed-methods study investigates the barriers and facilitators reported by educators during the early implementation of a new early literacy and language screener. Data from survey (n=694) and focus groups (n=39) were thematically coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify determinants of successful adoption. Findings revealed four key themes influencing implementation: ease of administration, understanding of the screener, trust in the data, and use of data for instructional decisions. Crosscutting themes included the critical role of reading specialists and the challenges posed by simultaneous curriculum and assessment initiatives. Barriers such as time constraints, technological challenges, and insufficient understanding of language-based subtests were identified, while robust inner-setting supports and effective communication emerged as facilitators. These results underscore the importance of accessible and timely professional development, iterative tool refinement, and strategic leadership in scaling evidence-based practices. Future research should explore longitudinal impacts and strategies to integrate such innovations seamlessly into schools' instructional ecosystems.

Indexed as

DyslexiaLanguage TestsLiteracyChildFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleReadingSurveys and QuestionnairesDeterminantsImplementationLanguageLiteracyReadingScreener

Identifiers

PMID40668284
PMCPMC12662938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.