The Utility of Kindergarten Teacher Ratings for Predicting Low Academic Achievement in First Grade

• Published in: Journal of learning disabilities 2001-05, Vol.34 (3), p.286-293
• Main Authors: Teisl, James T., Mazzocco, Michèle M. M., Myers, Gwen F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic Achievement; Biological and medical sciences; Child; Child Behavior Disorders - diagnosis; Child Behavior Disorders - psychology; Child clinical studies; Child, Preschool; Developmental disorders; Dyslexia - diagnosis; Dyslexia - psychology; Educational psychology; Elementary education; Elementary schools; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Grade 1; Humans; Kindergarten; Kindergarten Children; Kindergartens; Learning; Learning Disabilities; Learning disorders; Learning Disorders - diagnosis; Learning Disorders - psychology; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Mathematics; Mathematics Achievement; Medical sciences; Personality Assessment - statistics & numerical data; Predictors; Preschool Teachers; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Pupil and student. Academic achievement and failure; Ratings & rankings; Reading; Reading Ability; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Special education; Students; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Expectations of Students; Teachers; Underachievement; USA
• ISSN: 0022-2194; 1538-4780
• DOI: 10.1177/002221940103400308

The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive value of kindergarten teachers' ratings of pupils for later first-grade academic achievement. Kindergarten students were rated by their teachers on a variety of variables, including math and reading performance, teacher concerns, and amount of learning relative to peers. These variables were then analyzed with respect to outcome measures for math and reading ability administered in the first grade. The teachers' ratings of academic performance were significantly correlated with scores on the outcome measures. Analyses were also carried out to determine sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the different teacher ratings. The results indicated high overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value for the ratings. Positive predictive value tended to be lower. A recommendation to follow from these results is that teacher ratings of this sort be used to determine which children should receive cognitive screening measures to further enhance identification of children at risk for learning disability. However, this recommendation is limited by the lack of empirically supported screening measures for math disability versus well-supported screening tools for reading disability.