ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2025
Determinants to implementing a new early literacy screener: Barriers and facilitators.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.