On the validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: erratum and further analysis

Abstract

) evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the phonics screening check against two reference standards. This report aims to correct a minor data error in the original article and to present further analysis of the data. The methods used are calculation of predictive values of the phonics screening check in addition to sensitivity and specificity, and evaluation of agreement between the reference tests. Predictive values are important indicators of screening test quality. The positive predictive value of the phonics check is low (0.31) when compared with a standardised reading test but high (0.84) when compared with teachers' phonic phases judgements, reflecting poor agreement (kappa = 0.27) between reference tests. Results have implications for practice in terms of choice of reference standard and choice of threshold criterion for children to pass the screening check. Longitudinal data are needed to assess the predictive validity and utility of the check.What is already known about this topic:• The importance of phonics in learning to read is widely acknowledged.• The phonics screening check was introduced into U.K. schools in 2012 to ensure that all children develop phonic decoding skills.• Estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the phonics screening check, compared with two established 'reference' measures, were reported by Duff et al. (2015).What this paper adds:• We correct a minor error in the report of the original data by Duff et al. (2015).• We draw attention to the importance of including predictive values, alongside sensitivity and specificity, in the evaluation of screening test validity. We also propose an alternative statistic for comparing the two reference measures.• We show that applying this further analysis to the data in Duff et al. (2015) reveals the following: (i) the numbers of incorrect (false positive and false negative) outcomes in the phonics check and (ii) the marked difference in these numbers depending on the choice of reference measure.

The importance of early phonics improvements for predicting later reading comprehension

“…Furthermore, critics argue that the marking guidance provided to teachers for pseudowords is both overly restrictive in terms of acceptable pronunciations, and ambiguous about the allowances to be made for different accents (Gibson & England, 2016). Gilchrist and Snowling (2018) also found that performance on the phonics check correlates more strongly with measures of Phonics and reading comprehension 1221 pseudoword reading rather than other more general measures of phonemic awareness that correlate more strongly with later reading comprehension. The check has also been criticised for being unfair to students who enter school at a younger age, as well as those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, with both groups over-represented in the group scoring below the expected standard (Clark, 2013).…”

“…With respect to the predictive validity of the phonics screening check, the need for longitudinal data has been recognised, but the opportunities thus far have been limited (Gilchrist & Snowling, ). However, a subset of students who sat the phonics check when it was first introduced have now completed two formal assessments of reading comprehension during primary school: the Key Stage 1 assessment of reading, taken near the end of Year 2 (age 6–7) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), taken near the end of Year 5 (age 11–12).…”