ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2025
(Not so) universal literacy screening: a survey of educators reveals variability in implementation.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, most states in the United States have enacted legislation mandating universal screening for literacy risk in kindergarten through 3rd grade. However, the degree to which these policies translate into consistent, high-quality screening practices remains unclear. In this survey study, we collected responses from a diverse sample of K-3 educators (N = 251) across 39 states, representing varied school types, professional roles, and experience levels, to examine the real-world implementation of universal screening. Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify real-world factors that could impede the fidelity and effectiveness of screening implementation. We found substantial variability across multiple dimensions of literacy screening implementation. Educators described considerable variation in screener selection, administration practices, testing environments, training quality, scoring accuracy, and the use of results to guide intervention. Notably, many indicated insufficient training and professional development, expressing uncertainty about administering and interpreting screeners, particularly for English language learners. Nearly half also reported the absence of systematic procedures for developing intervention plans, suggesting that many students identified as at risk do not receive appropriate follow-up support. These implementation challenges occurred despite widespread recognition among educators of screening's importance for early literacy intervention. Educators from lower-socioeconomic status schools reported significantly greater time burdens in conducting screenings and more technology-related challenges compared to their higher-SES counterparts. Without systematic improvements to implementation support and training, current screening initiatives may fail to achieve their intended goal of early identification and intervention for struggling readers.
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.