Preliminary validation of the Brazilian version of SPRouT for screening reading difficulties.
Beatriz de Souza Dos Reis França, Lucas Alves Maia, Ricardo Franco de Lima and 1 others
The Brazilian SPRouT checklist tracked with phonological awareness, memory, and letter-naming scores in 27 children, but this is a one-time school check with no reliability data and no cut-off — not evidence it works as a clinical screening tool.
Key findings
1SPRouT scores showed significant negative correlations with phonological awareness (rho = -0.719), phonological working memory (rho = -0.524), and letter-naming errors (rho = -0.804), meaning children with higher SPRouT risk scores performed worse on these tasks.
2In regression, the SPRouT score explained 31.4% of the variance in phonological awareness (p = 0.003) and 32.8% in letter-naming time (p = 0.007), both described as large effects.
3SPRouT did not significantly relate to object naming (p = 0.411) or number naming (p = 0.078), suggesting it may not capture all types of rapid naming.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Twenty-seven children from a single private school in Northeast Brazil — the results cannot be generalised to other regions, school types, or socioeconomic groups. Cross-sectional design: the correlations show that SPRouT scores and phonological scores move together at one point in time; they do not show that SPRouT predicts future reading difficulty. No reliability data (internal consistency, test-retest) and no factor analysis were reported, so the internal structure of the checklist is untested. No cut-off score or sensitivity/specificity was established, so there is no way to decide from a score whether a child is 'at risk' or not. Children with and without suspected difficulties (ASD, CAS, phonological disorder, ADHD) were mixed together without formal diagnostic confirmation, introducing uncontrolled variation. The number of children who completed each test varied from 19 to 27, so some correlations are based on as few as 19 children. The instrument was applied in a school setting for convenience, not in the clinical/pediatric context for which it was originally designed. Convenience sampling from one school, with no random selection.
Declared interests
No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the significant correlations as proof that SPRouT is a validated, reliable screening tool you can use on Monday. This is a one-time check of 27 children from a single school, with no reliability data, no cut-off score, and no evidence it performs in a clinic. The 'predictive potential' the authors mention is a cross-sectional correlation, not a prediction, and the sample is too small and too narrow to support any clinical decision.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →