Table 2_A narrative review of school-based screening tools for dyslexia among students.docx

BackgroundEarly detection and intervention of dyslexia in children and young people (CYP) can help mitigate its negative impacts. Schools play a crucial role as a key point of contact for dyslexia screening.
ObjectiveIn this review, we examined the range of screening tools and reported sensitivities and specificities in school settings to identify CYP with dyslexia and explored variations in how tools captured the socio-demographic characteristics of screened student's groups.
DesignNarrative review.
MethodsWe searched five electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cochrane, and Scopus (2010–2023) to identify worldwide school-based dyslexia screening studies conducted in CYP aged 4–16 years. Three independent researchers screened the papers, and data were extracted on the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools, the informants involved, the prevalence of dyslexia among those who screened positive, and the socio-demographic characteristics of the identified CYP.
ResultsSixteen of 6,041 articles met the eligibility criteria. The study population ranged from 95 to 9,964 participants. We identified 17 different types of school-based dyslexia screening tools. Most studies combined screening tools (mean number of 3.7, standard deviation = 2.7) concurrently to identify dyslexia. Three studies used a staged approach of two and three stages. Developmental Dyslexia and Dysorthographia and Raven Progressive Matrices were the most used tools. The percentage of cases screening positive for dyslexia ranged from 3.1 to 33.0%. Among CYP identified by screening with dyslexia, there were missing socio-demographic data on gender (50%) and socio-economic status (81%) and none on ethnicity.
ConclusionA variety of screening tools are used to identify children and young people (CYP) with dyslexia in school settings. However, it is unclear whether this wide range of tools is necessary or reflects variations in definitions. Greater collaboration between researchers and front-line educators could help establish a solid evidence base for screening and reduce the inconsistencies in approach. In the meantime, a practical and beneficial approach may involve starting with a highly sensitive screening tool, followed by more specific tests to assess detailed deficits and their impact.

背景：儿童与青少年（children and young people，CYP）诵读困难症的早期发现与干预，可有效减轻其带来的负面影响。学校作为诵读困难症筛查的关键接触节点，发挥着至关重要的作用。
目的：本综述梳理了当前用于识别CYP诵读困难症的各类筛查工具，报告了其在校园场景下的敏感度与特异度，并探讨了不同工具在采集受试学生群体社会人口学特征方面的差异。
研究设计：叙述性综述。
方法：本研究检索了2010年至2023年间的5个电子数据库，即EMBASE、MEDLINE、PsychInfo、Cochrane与Scopus，旨在筛选全球范围内针对4至16岁CYP开展的校园诵读困难症筛查研究。由3名独立研究者分别进行文献筛查，并提取以下数据：筛查工具的敏感度与特异度、所用信息提供者、筛查阳性人群中的诵读困难症患病率，以及所识别CYP群体的社会人口学特征。
结果：在6041篇文献中，共有16篇符合纳入标准。研究纳入的受试人群规模从95人至9964人不等。本综述共识别出17种不同的校园诵读困难症筛查工具。多数研究同时联合使用多种筛查工具（平均使用3.7种，标准差为2.7）以识别诵读困难症患者；另有3项研究采用了2阶段或3阶段的分步筛查方案。应用最为广泛的工具为《发展性诵读困难与拼写障碍量表》（Developmental Dyslexia and Dysorthographia）与《瑞文推理测验》（Raven Progressive Matrices）。诵读困难症筛查阳性率介于3.1%至33.0%之间。在经筛查确诊的诵读困难症CYP群体中，性别（50%）与社会经济地位（81%）的社会人口学数据存在大量缺失，且无种族相关数据。
结论：当前校园场景中用于识别CYP诵读困难症的筛查工具种类繁多，但目前尚不明确这种广泛的工具选择是否必要，亦或是反映了不同研究对诵读困难症定义的差异。研究者与一线教育工作者之间加强协作，可为筛查工作建立坚实的证据基础，减少方法学上的不一致性。与此同时，一种兼具实用性与价值的方案或许是：先采用高敏感度筛查工具进行初筛，再通过特异性更强的检测来评估具体的功能缺陷及其影响。