ArticleReading research quarterly
Improving the Measures of Phonological Ability in the Russian Language: IRT and CART Modeling Application.
Article in Reading research quarterly. 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
Phonological awareness and phonological working memory are essential for successful language acquisition and development of literacy. Although this essence is language-universal, its degree varies for different languages, depending, in part, on language transparency. The current study analyzes the adapted versions of the pseudoword repetition test (assessing phonological working memory) and Rosner's Auditory Segmentation test (assessing phonological awareness) in a typically developing Russian native sample of children (n = 502). As a preparatory step to item analysis, we investigated the effects of grade and gender on performance using a mixed effects model. The initial item analysis was carried out using model comparison within the Item Response Theory model framework and threshold/slope analysis. The majority of the items in both assessments did not differentiate between students with different levels of phonological ability. Further item selection using regression tree models led to the formation of predictive and non-predictive item subsets for each assessment. After comparing the item subsets on various linguistic metrics, the differences were found in number of syllables and subsyllabic complexity for the pseudoword repetition test and elision segment position for the auditory segmentation test. The findings inform test development strategies in the cases of extremely low difficulty/discrimination of the items and outline a blueprint of pseudoword repetition and auditory segmentation test's adaptation for potentially detecting higher levels of phonological ability in transparent languages such as Russian.
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.