Purpose: Dynamic assessments (DAs) of word reading skills (e.g., phonological awareness, decoding) demonstrate predictive validity with word reading outcomes but are characterized by substantial heterogeneity in terms of format, administration method, word, and symbol type used, factors which may affect their validity. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether the validity of DAs of word reading skills is affected by these characteristics. Method: Five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL), 3 preprint repositories (MedRxiv, PsyArxiv and EdArxiv) and the gray literature were searched between March 2022 and March 2023, to identify studies with participants aged 4-10 that reported a Pearson's correlation coefficient between a DA of word reading and a word reading measure. A random effects meta-analysis and 4 subgroup analyses based on DA format, administration method, word and symbol type were conducted. Results: Thirty-two studies from 30 articles were identified. The overall effect size between DAs of word reading skills and word reading is large. There are no significant differences in mean effect sizes based on format (graduated prompt vs. train-test) or administration method (computer vs. in-person). However, DAs that use nonwords and those that use familiar letters or characters demonstrate significantly stronger correlations with word reading measures, than those that use real words and those that use novel symbols. Conclusions: Outcomes provide preliminary evidence to suggest that DAs of word reading skills that use nonwords and familiar letters in their test items are more strongly associated with later word reading ability than those that use real words or novel symbols. There were no significant differences between DAs administered in-person versus via computer. Results inform development of novel DAs of word reading, and clinical practice when it comes to selecting assessment tools.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://osf.io/bcghx.

This systematic review and meta-analysis is funded by a Canada Graduate Scholarship-Master's grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, at the Rehabilitation Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, awarded to EW, by a University of Toronto Excellence Award, awarded to KB and by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant awarded to MM (RGPIN-2019-06523).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes