Validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: implications for practice

Abstract

Background Introduced in June 2012, the phonics screening check aims to assess whether 6‐year‐old children are meeting an appropriate standard in phonic decoding and to identify children struggling with phonic skills. Aims We investigated whether the check is a valid measure of phonic skill and is sensitive in identifying children at risk of reading difficulties. Sample We obtained teacher assessments of phonic skills for 292 six‐year‐old children and additional psychometric data for 160 of these children. Methods Teacher assessment data were accessed from schools via the local authority; psychometric tests were administered by researchers shortly after the phonics screening check. Results The check was strongly correlated with other literacy skills and was sensitive in identifying at‐risk readers. So too were teacher judgements of phonics. Conclusions Although the check fulfils its aims, we argue that resources might be better focused on training and supporting teachers in their ongoing monitoring of phonics.

The Factors Contributing to Teacher Predictions of Spelling Ability, and the Accuracy of Their Assessments

“…Each of our measures of oral language (speech perception, phonological awareness, speech articulation accuracy and morphological awareness) significantly differed according to the children's risk status as judged by their teachers. These findings are consistent with other evidence suggesting that teachers are in fact good at judging oral language processing (e.g., Duff, Mengoni, Bailey, & Snowling, 2014). Importantly, children in these schools were actively taught phonological processing, which may have heightened the teachers' sensitivity to children's phonological awareness abilities, making them more easily observed in the classroom.…”

The inclusion of pseudowords within the year one phonics ‘Screening Check’ in English primary schools

“…While other studies have indicated that both pseudo and real word identification fluency are good predictors of reading fluency (e.g. Sisco-Taylor, 2012, p.19;Duff, et al 2014), the issue remains that the rationale for the inclusion of pseudowords in the Y1 phonics Check is not clearly explained, as Clark indicates, and is questionable insofar as it fails to justify what additional value (or, indeed, additional harm) the inclusion of pseudowords would bring to such an assessment.…”

“…Some teachers reported that the test was undiagnostic (see Clark, Oct 2013d, p.15) and revealed no novel assessment information: '91% of respondents felt the Check did not tell them anything they did not already know about the children's reading ability' (ATL, NAHT, NUT, July 2012. See also Duff et al, 2014;NFER, 2014). Many reported that it did not address the particular needs of pupils with ESL, to which the DfE reported that in the first year 'the same percentage as those whose first language was recorded as other than English passed the test ' (DfE, 2013b, p.2).…”

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

“…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 (). What this paper adds: We correct a minor error in the report of the original data by Duff et al (). 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 () 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. Implications for theory, policy or practice: Reports of screening test validity should include positive and negative predictive values. A fundamental consideration for evaluating the validity of the phonics screening check is the choice of reference measure. Longitudinal data are needed to assess the predictive validity and utility of the phonics 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 (). …”