reliability and validity of the reading level assessment and the “flash” word recognition...
TRANSCRIPT
Reliability and Validity of the Reading Level Assessment
and the “Flash” Word Recognition Automaticity
MeasureGrace T. Craig [email protected]
Kathleen J. BrownMatthew K. Fields
University of Utah Reading ClinicR. Darrell Morris
Appalachian State University
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
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.
Reading Level Criteria
Acc.
(%)
Rate
(wpm)
Comp
(%)
Mid G1 90 30 60
End G1 90 40 60
End G2 93 90 60
End G3 93 110 60
End G4 95 120 60
End G5 95 130 60
End G6 95 150 60
End G7 95 150 60
End G8 95 150 60
Flash Percentage 80 (for all graded lists)
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?
Results: Alternate Form Reliability
Spearman’s Rho Correlations
RLA Form B
Flash Manual
Flash Comp
RLA A .906** .774** .830**
RLA B .829** .869**
Flash Manual .820**
**p < .01
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test(Non-parametric paired hypothesis test)
Z p
RLA Form B – RLA Form A
-1.738a .082
Flash Comp – Flash Manual
-.610a .542
a. Based on positive ranks.
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)?
Results: Criterion Validity
Spearman’s Rho Correlations
RLA B
GORT
Flash
RLA A .906** .871** .836**
RLA B .887** .885**
GORT .868**
**p < .01
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?
Results: Content Validity
Median Grade Equivalent by Grade
RLA Flash
GORT
Grade 2 2.9
2.9
3.9
Grade 3 3.9
3.9
5.5
Grade 4 4.9
4.9
7.2
Grade 5 5.9
5.9
7.7
85
88
91
94
97
100
20 50 80 110 140 170 200Rate
Acc
urac
y
93%
90 WPM
Accuracy and rate of second grade students on Grade 2 passage.
85
88
91
94
97
100
50 75 100 125 150 175 200Rate
Acc
ura
cy
93%
110 WPM
90
92
94
96
98
100
65 80 95 110 125 140 155 170 185 200Rate
Acc
ura
cy
95%
120 WPM
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Rate
Acc
ura
cy95%
130 WPM
Accuracy and rate of third grade students on Grade 3 passage.
Accuracy and rate of fourth grade students on Grade 4 passage. Accuracy and rate of fifth grade students on Grade 5 passage.
52% pass 53% pass
59% pass 51% pass
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
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
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