CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLanguage Development and DisordersHealth Policy Implementation Science

Educators’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of screeners for developmental language disorder and dyslexia

Open access
Komesidou, Rouzana, Feller, Melissa J., Wolter, Julie A., Ricketts, Jessie, Rasner, Mary G., Putman, Coille A., Hogan, Tiffany P.·2022·Journal of Research in Reading
DOI 10.1111/1467-9817.12381PMC PMC9562997
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Developmental language disorder (DLD) and dyslexia are common but under‐identified conditions that affect children's ability to read and comprehend text. Universal screening is a promising solution for improving under‐identification of DLD and dyslexia; however, we lack evidence for how to effectively implement and sustain screening procedures in schools. In the current study, we solicited input from educators in the United States around perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of researcher‐developed screeners for DLD and dyslexia. Using thematic analysis, we identified barriers and facilitators within five domains: (1) features of the screeners, (2) preparation for screening procedures, (3) administration of the screeners, (4) demands on users and (5) screening results. We discuss these findings and ways we can continue improving our efforts to maximise the contextual fit and utility of screening practices in schools. Highlights: What is already known about this topic DLD and dyslexia are common but under‐identified disorders. Universal screening can improve under‐identification of DLD and dyslexia. What this paper adds This paper presents useful information about contextual and process factors that may facilitate or hinder implementation of universal screening for DLD and dyslexia in schools. Implications for theory, policy or practice This paper is an important starting point in understanding what it takes to implement universal screening for DLD and dyslexia in schools. Our findings offer several suggestions of contextual and process factors that might influence the implementation trajectory. They also highlight the importance of leveraging educators' knowledge of routine practice to improve uptake of evidence‐based programmes for children with DLD and dyslexia.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9817.12381

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Practitioners struggled with the transition from in-person to virtual or phone screening.

    “The theme of COVID-19 creating organizational challenges is consistent with additional studies that have found practitioners struggled with the transition from in-person to virtual or phone screening (75).”

    From Barriers and facilitators to implementation of developmental screening and early intervention in Canadian organizations following completion of a training and coaching model: a thematic analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [75]

    In Results, Theme 3 (Mode of administration), educators describe remote screening as difficult and some say they preferred in-person administration. Results, Theme 2 (Training), also reports insufficient direction for virtual implementation. The paper supports difficulty with virtual screening, but the cited passages do not describe phone screening or explicitly assess a transition from an earlier in-person practice. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Komesidou, R., Feller, M. J., Wolter, J. A., Ricketts, J., Rasner, M. G., Putman, C. A., & Hogan, T. P.
Affiliations
  • MGH Institute of Health Professions (US)
  • University of Montana (US)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Komesidou, Rouzana
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Research in Reading
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-01-23
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
277-298
ISSN
  • 0141-0423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9817
DOI
10.1111/1467-9817.12381
PMC
PMC9562997
OpenAlex
W4206965522
Cited by
31
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2
FWCI
8.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Research in Reading (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K008064/2, ES/K008064/1)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC016895)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
specific language impairment, dyslexia, universal screening, screening program implementation, barriers and facilitators, teacher perceptions, school-based screening, evidence-based practice uptake

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review