1 / 16

Grace T. Craig -Grace.Craig@utah Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields

Reliability and Validity of the Reading Level Assessment and the “Flash” Word Recognition Automaticity Measure. Grace T. Craig -Grace.Craig@utah.edu Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields University of Utah Reading Clinic R. Darrell Morris Appalachian State University. Methods. 4 schools

deborahturner
Download Presentation

Grace T. Craig -Grace.Craig@utah Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reliability and Validity of the Reading Level Assessment and the “Flash” Word Recognition Automaticity Measure Grace T. Craig -Grace.Craig@utah.edu Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields University of Utah Reading Clinic R. Darrell Morris Appalachian State University

  2. Methods • 4 schools • 2 = Title 1 1 = public, 1 = parochial • 2 = non-Title 1 both = public & mixed SES • 192 students in G2-G5 in March, 2006 • Rank ordered DIBELS or QRI of each grade within a school, then sampled 12 students: 4 high, 4 average, 4 poor to achieve a representative distribution for testing

  3. Methods • 135 minutes of assessment in 3 sessions • Two forms of Reading Level Assessment (RLA) and a standardized test- Gray Oral Reading Test • Manual and computer presentations of Flash • Tests and presentations were counterbalanced • Manual flash interrater differences = n.s.

  4. Reading Level Criteria

  5. Alternate Form Reliability • To what extent are RLA Form A scores equivalent to RLA Form B scores? • To what extent are computer presentation Flash scores equivalent to manual presentation Flash scores?

  6. Results: Alternate Form ReliabilitySpearman’s Rho Correlations **p < .01

  7. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test(Non-parametric paired hypothesis test) a. Based on positive ranks.

  8. Criterion Validity • To what extent are Flash scores and RLA scores consistent with scores achieved on a “flagship” standardized reading measure, the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT)?

  9. Results: Criterion ValiditySpearman’s Rho Correlations **p < .01

  10. Content Validity • Is the Reading Level Assessment representative of grade level benchmarks? • Are the graded passages of the Reading Level Assessment representative of their respective grades?

  11. Results: Content ValidityMedian Grade Equivalent by Grade

  12. 52% pass 53% pass Accuracy and rate of second grade students on Grade 2 passage. Accuracy and rate of third grade students on Grade 3 passage. 59% pass 51% pass Accuracy and rate of fourth grade students on Grade 4 passage. Accuracy and rate of fifth grade students on Grade 5 passage.

  13. Conclusions: Alternate Form Reliability • RLA A and RLA B seem to be equivalent forms • Manual Flash and Computer Flash seem to be equivalent forms • Examiners can be trained to mimic a 300 ms eye fixation without significant difference from a computer

  14. Conclusions: Criterion Validity • RLA Form A and RLA Form B are strongly correlated with a popular standardized oral reading test, the GORT • The Flash is strongly correlated with the GORT • These correlations indicate that the Reading Level Assessment and the Flash instrument are, like the GORT, testing reading ability

  15. Conclusions: Content Validity • The Reading Level Assessment seems to have high validity for identifying students’ instructional reading levels • The Flash seems to have high validity for identifying students’ instructional levels • The GORT seems to identify student instructional levels which are inflated by at least a year, and sometimes more than two years

More Related