The importance of early literacy screening

Screening all K-2 students for reading difficulties helps ensure they get the support they need to learn to read well.

At a Glance

Growing awareness of reading difficulties such as dyslexia have prompted the rise of legislation requiring schools to screen all students for reading difficulties.
Universal screening programs involve efficient, regular assessments of specific reading-related skills so that educators can determine which students need support.
Data from screenings should inform the instructional decisions teachers make for specific students.
Incorporating universal screening into a multitiered system of support enables schools to provide the right level of support and evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts.
Teachers new to the use of screeners will need training in how to administer them and use the results to inform instruction.
Experienced teachers can mentor their colleagues and take the lead on selecting screeners and collaborating with colleagues to use them appropriately.

Beginning in the mid-20th century, educators and researchers developed a deeper understanding of various reading difficulties that affect student achievement. Beyond just recognizing specific conditions like dyslexia, there emerged a broader awareness of the spectrum of literacy challenges requiring systematic identification and targeted support. This evolution in understanding, coupled with advocacy from parents and education specialists, prompted significant policy changes in how schools approach reading instruction and intervention (Odegard et al., 2020).

Legislative initiatives that emerged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries emphasized early identification and intervention for reading difficulties. Nearly all U.S. states have now enacted legislation acknowledging these challenges, with approaches varying widely. Some states mandate universal screening, particularly for students in kindergarten through second grade; others focus on teacher training, specific intervention guidelines, parental involvement, or addressing multilingual learners’ needs (Gearin, Turtura, Kame’enui, Nelson, & Fien, 2018; Youman & Mather, 2018). Despite these variations, most mandates share an emphasis on evidence-based assessment tools to identify at-risk students and provide them with individualized support (Petscher, Pentimonti, & Stanley, 2019).

Understanding universal reading screeners

As states have developed their approaches to early identification, universal reading screeners have emerged as a central component of these efforts. A universal reading screener is an assessment tool designed to identify students who may be at risk for reading difficulties and to inform instructional decisions to support them (Gilbert et al., 2012). Administration time varies by screener but typically ranges from five to 20 minutes (National Center for Intensive Instruction [NCII], 2024). Its primary purpose is to provide an efficient, reliable, and valid measure of reading skills for all students in a grade level.

The screener is typically administered at the beginning of the school year or after sufficient instruction has been provided in kindergarten, sometimes multiple times a year to a whole classroom of students. It is designed to be quick and to provide objective information about each student’s ability. Those students who perform below a set benchmark score are considered at risk for reading difficulties and in need of intervention (January & Klingbeil, 2020; Mellard & Johnson, 2007; Petscher, Pentimonti, & Stanley, 2019).

A universal reading screener includes a variety of tasks and activities tailored to different grade and skill levels and covers a range of literacy domains.

A universal reading screener includes a variety of tasks and activities tailored to different grade and skill levels and covers a range of literacy domains. Some screeners may incorporate technology or adaptive testing to personalize the assessment experience for each student. While these assessments offer valuable insights, they are not exhaustive measures of students’ knowledge and capabilities. Teachers can subsequently conduct follow-up assessments and track students’ progress to assess their mastery of specific skills and determine if further instruction and practice are necessary.

What screeners assess

A universal reading screener typically includes several key components that assess essential skills predictive of reading skill and comprehension. These components may vary depending on the specific screening tool and the grade level being assessed, but generally include the following:

Phonological and phonemic awareness: For younger students, the screener may assess phonological awareness skills, such as rhyming, syllable segmentation, and initial sound identification. For older students, the focus may shift to phonemic awareness skills, such as phoneme segmentation, blending, and manipulation.
Letter-name and letter-sound knowledge: The screener may assess a student’s ability to recognize and name uppercase and lowercase letters and their corresponding sounds.
Decoding and word recognition: As students progress, the screener may assess their ability to decode regular and irregular words, as well as their recognition of high-frequency words. This component may include real words and made-up words.
Oral reading fluency: The screener may include a measure of students’ ability to read connected text accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression. This typically involves having students read a passage aloud for one minute and calculating the number of words read correctly.
Vocabulary and language skills: Some screeners include assessment of vocabulary knowledge and language skills, such as understanding of word meanings, synonyms, antonyms, or categories.
Rapid automatized naming: Some screeners may include a measure of students’ ability to quickly name a series of familiar items, such as colors, objects, or letters. This skill has been linked to reading fluency.

While these components are commonly found in universal reading screeners, the specific skills evaluated and the format of the assessment may vary depending on the screener and the grade level.

Choosing a screener

When selecting a screener, educators should consider the research evidence supporting its validity and reliability, as well as its alignment with the school’s literacy curriculum and instructional goals. Additionally, screeners should be culturally and linguistically appropriate for the student population.

There are several reading screeners available to schools. The NCII’s screening tools chart can help schools compare commonly used screeners. In addition, our multidisciplinary team of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and collaborators have developed a new screener called Multitudes to offer an efficient, accurate, and culturally and linguistically affirming assessment informed by the latest neuroscience research.

Multitudes includes a brief screener option, as well as a full suite of universal screening measures in English and Spanish for use in kindergarten through second grade. The screener accounts for dialects of African American English (AAE), and a Mandarin version is currently under development. It includes measures in oral language, vocabulary, concept knowledge, rapid automatized naming, alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, decoding, spelling, reading fluency, verbal short-term memory, and visual spatial ability. It is free for all public schools in California and available to others for a fee.

A process for screening and support

A universal reading screener can help educators identify students who may be struggling with literacy skills and in need of additional help. By pinpointing specific areas of weakness and strength, educators can tailor instruction to meet these students’ needs. Early identification and intervention are crucial for reducing reading difficulties. Literacy screeners play a crucial role in ensuring that all students receive targeted instruction and support early on, so they can become proficient readers and communicators.

By providing timely and targeted support, these screeners play a role in helping teachers identify who should receive targeted differentiated instruction, helping to prevent long-term academic challenges. Such screening has a different purpose from a diagnostic assessment (Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009). Screening is a rapid assessment of entire classrooms to identify risk, while diagnosis requires more extensive assessment by professionals. Effective screening programs can reduce the need for costly diagnostic assessments by identifying a subset of at-risk students who may require further evaluation after a period of core instruction or intervention. As such, universal reading screeners are a key component of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), which aims to provide early identification and targeted intervention (Jimerson, Burns, & Vanderheyden, 2015).

What is MTSS?

MTSS is an educational framework designed to provide targeted interventions and support to students at varying levels of need. At its core, MTSS aims to prevent academic difficulties and address the diverse learning needs of all students. Students in schools using MTSS are placed into different tiers of instruction, with each tier offering varying levels of intensity and intervention.

Tier 1 consists of high-quality, evidence-based instruction provided to all students in the general education classroom.
Tier 2 consists of more focused and intensive instruction, typically delivered in small-group settings to students who require support beyond Tier 1.
Tier 3 provides even more intensive interventions, often delivered in a one-on-one or small-group setting for students who continue to struggle after receiving Tier 2 support.

Throughout the process, educators collect data to monitor student progress and inform instructional decisions. By implementing MTSS, schools can effectively address the diverse academic needs of their students and ensure that all learners have access to the support they need.

Role of screeners in MTSS

Early screening plays a crucial role in MTSS. Universal screening, conducted at regular intervals, enables schools to systematically assess all students for potential academic concerns, including reading difficulties such as dyslexia. When schools use screenings and data to intervene early, they prevent academic difficulties from becoming more severe.

MTSS builds on what educators learn through their screening program to ensure students are placed in the right tier of support:

Universal screening: Screeners regularly assess all students’ foundational literacy skills, such as phonemic awareness, decoding, vocabulary, and listening comprehension, so educators can identify students who may need additional support.
Early identification of at-risk students: Quick and reliable data allows educators to identify students who are not meeting literacy benchmarks and intervene promptly before they fall further behind their peers.
Data-driven decision-making: Objective data from screeners can inform educators’ decisions regarding the allocation of resources and interventions and enable them to tailor interventions to students’ specific needs.
Tiered interventions: Students identified as at risk for reading difficulties may receive targeted Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions in small-group settings or through one-on-one instruction.

What teachers need to know

Incorporating a screener into teaching practice can benefit both novice and expert teachers. It’s crucial to provide teachers who are new to universal screening with comprehensive training on the screener’s purpose and administration. These are some aspects of screening they will need to learn:

The purpose and limitations of screening. Screening is designed to identify students who may be at risk for academic difficulties, but it is not a comprehensive assessment of all skills. Teachers should use screening data as a starting point, not as a definitive label for students (Gersten et al., 2009).
The importance of administering the screener with fidelity. To ensure accurate results, teachers should follow the screening protocol closely, including standardized administration procedures and scoring guidelines. Deviating from the protocol can lead to invalid data and inappropriate instructional decisions (Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009).
Data interpretation. Teachers new to screening should work with experienced colleagues, such as literacy coaches or school psychologists, to interpret screening results accurately. This includes understanding benchmark goals, cut scores, and percentile ranks, as well as considering other factors that may influence student performance, such as language proficiency or cultural background (Ball & Christ, 2012).
Use of screening data. Screening data can help teachers identify students who need additional support and plan targeted interventions. Teachers should collaborate with their grade-level teams and support staff to design and implement evidence-based interventions that address specific skill deficits shown in the data (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
Progress monitoring. Progress-monitoring tools can help teachers track student responses to instruction and intervention and determine whether interventions are effective or need to be adjusted (Deno, 2003).
Communication with families. Teachers should share screening results and intervention plans with families, using clear and jargon-free language. This can help foster a partnership between home and school and ensure students receive consistent support across settings (Epstein et al., 2002).
The value of ongoing professional development. Workshops, webinars, or mentoring from experienced colleagues enable teachers to stay up to date with research and best practices, make informed decisions, and improve their instructional effectiveness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

Collaborating with experienced colleagues or mentors for guidance and peer feedback can help streamline the screening process. Additionally, teachers should seek support when interpreting screener results, developing action plans, and engaging in reflective practice about the screening process.

As school leaders, expert teachers should be encouraged to customize the screener to align with curriculum objectives and student needs, lead data-analysis efforts, and use screener results to inform instructional planning and decision-making across and between grade levels.

How expert teachers can help

Expert teachers can share their best practices and strategies for effective screener use with their colleagues. They can model exemplary interpretation practices and offer mentorship for less experienced teachers. As school leaders, expert teachers should be encouraged to customize the screener to align with curriculum objectives and student needs, lead data-analysis efforts, and use screener results to inform instructional planning and decision making across and between grade levels.

These are a few specific areas where experienced teachers can support the schoolwide use of screeners:

Evaluation and selection. Expert teachers can collaborate with school leadership and support staff to evaluate and select a universal reading screener that aligns with the school’s literacy curriculum, instructional goals, and student population. The screener should have strong evidence of validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007).
Training on administration and data interpretation. Expert teachers can serve as mentors and trainers, ensuring that all personnel involved in screening are trained in administration procedures, scoring guidelines, and data interpretation. Consistent and accurate implementation is critical for making informed instructional decisions (Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009).
Data analysis. Expert teachers can conduct in-depth analyses of screening data to identify patterns and trends at the individual, classroom, and grade levels. This may involve disaggregating data by subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities) to ensure that all students are making adequate progress and receiving appropriate support (Ikeda, Neessen, & Witt, 2008).
Collaboration with colleagues. Expert teachers can work closely with grade-level teams, support staff, and specialists to ensure that interventions are aligned across tiers of support and that all students have access to high-quality instruction (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007).
Evaluating the effectiveness of instruction and intervention. Using screening data, along with other assessment data, expert teachers can evaluate the effectiveness of core instruction and interventions. If data suggests a significant number of students are not making adequate progress, expert teachers should work with colleagues to adjust instructional strategies and intervention protocols (Gersten et al., 2009).
Data-based decision-making. Expert teachers can use screening and progress data to make informed decisions about student placement, movement between tiers of support, and the need for additional assessment or referral for special education (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007).
Continuous reflection and improvement. To refine their screening and intervention practices, expert teachers can engage in ongoing reflection and professional development by staying up to date with research on reading assessment and intervention, participating in professional learning communities, and seeking feedback from colleagues and experts (Foorman & Moats, 2004).

Supporting students at risk

Universal reading screeners play a vital role in preventing and addressing reading difficulties. By providing a quick and reliable measure of reading skills for all students, screeners enable educators to identify students at risk, inform instructional decision making, and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Through early identification and targeted intervention, educators can proactively support students at risk for academic challenges, including dyslexia, and promote positive academic outcomes.

By incorporating evidence-based screening tools within the MTSS framework, schools can effectively identify at-risk students, provide tailored interventions, and monitor progress to ensure that all students can thrive academically. Effective screening, ongoing collaboration, and data-driven decision making — essential components of successful implementation within an MTSS system — will ultimately lead to improved literacy outcomes for all students.

Note: This work was supported by funding provided by the State of California through Senate Bills 109 and 129, and Assembly Bill 103 of 2019, 2021, and 2022, respectively, in item 6440-001-0001, support for the University of California, San Francisco and the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation.

References

Ball, C.R. & Christ, TJ. (2012). Supporting valid decision making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RTI. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 231-244.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E., Gardener, M., & Espinoza, D (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

Deno, S.L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28 (3-4), 3-12.

Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.G., Simon, B.S., Salinas, K.C., Jansorn, N.R., & Van Voorhis, F.L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Corwin.

Foorman, B.R. & Moats, L.C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25 (1), 51-60.

Fuchs, D. & Deshler, D.D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22 (2), 129-136.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 93-99.

Gearin, B., Turtura, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Nelson, N. J., & Fien, H. (2018). A multiple streams analysis ofrecent changes to state-level dyslexia education law. Educational Policy.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RTI) for elementary and middle schools. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse.

Gilbert, J.K., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38 (1), 6-14.

Ikeda, M., Nessen E., & Witt, J. (2008). Best practices in universal screening. Best Practices in School Psychology, 5, 103-114.

January, S.A. & Klingbeil, D.A. (2020). Universal screening in grades K-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early reading curriculum-based measures. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 103-122.

Jenkins, J., Hudson, R., & Johnson, E. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36.

Jimerson, S., Burns, M. & Vanderheyden, A. (2015). From response to intervention to multi-tiered systems of support: Advances in the science and practice of assessment and intervention. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. Vanderheyden (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention. Springer.

Mellard, D.F. & Johnson, E. (2007). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing response to intervention. Corwin.

Mellard, D.F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24 (4), 186-195.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2024). Academic screening tools chart. American Institutes for Research.

Odegard, T., Farris, E., Middleton, A., Oslund, E., & Rimrodt, S. (2020). Characteristics of students identified with dyslexia within the context of state legislation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53.

Petscher, Y., Pentimonti, J., & Stanley, C. (2019). Reliability. Improving literacy brief: Understanding screening. National Center on Improving Literacy.

Vanderheyden, A., & Witt, J., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology. 45, 225-256.

Youman, M. & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia Laws in the USA: A 2018 update. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 37-41.

This article appears in the Summer 2025 issue of Kappan, Vol. 106, No. 7-8, pp. 28-33.