Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR): Evaluation of an Online Tool for Screening Reading Skills in a Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics Clinic.
Elizabeth Barrington, Sadie Mae Sarkisian, Heidi M Feldman and 1 others
PMID 38016008WHAT IT FOUND
In 41 children with neurodevelopmental conditions, an online reading screener correlated strongly with gold-standard tests and accurately identified poor readers.
It offers a quick, self-administered option for clinics, but small sample size limits certainty.
Key findings
01ROAR standard scores were significantly correlated with the Woodcock Johnson IV Basic Reading Skills standard scores (r = 0.66).
02As a screening test, ROAR achieved an area under the curve of 0.90 for identifying poor readers.
03A ROAR standard score of 91.22 or greater had 90.0% sensitivity and 81.8% specificity for predicting adequate reading skills.
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
The sample size was small (n=41), limiting the certainty of the findings. The study was conducted in a single clinic, so results may not generalize to other settings. The correlation between ROAR and gold-standard tests was lower in this clinical population than in general population samples. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling, and the study did not track the percentage of patients who declined participation. Some children completed the gold-standard assessment via telehealth, which may differ slightly from in-person administration. The study did not evaluate the newer, computer-adaptive version of ROAR, which is faster to complete.
Declared interests
The authors declared no personal, commercial, political, academic or financial interests that might bias the research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat ROAR as a diagnostic tool. A positive screen indicates the need for a full evaluation, not a confirmed reading disorder. The study's small sample size and lower correlation compared to general population data mean it should be used with caution in clinical sub-populations.