This study examined the relations among performance on standardized reading tests, two informal measures (reading aloud and maze), and teacher judgment. Subjects were 335 students from Grades 2–6. Correlations between oral reading fluency and two achievement tests varied according to students' grade level, with a declining trend in the coefficients as grade level increased. Correlations between oral reading and achievement tests at the upper grade levels were lower than those reported in previous studies. In contrast, coefficients between performance on maze tasks and achievement tests did not show a similar decline from lower to upper grade levels. Results are discussed in the context of assessment procedures used in formative instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Commission on Reading. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education.
2.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K., & ChiangB. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
5.
EspinC.DenoS. L.MaruyamaG., & CohenC. (1989). The Basic Academic Skills Survey (BASS); An instrument for screening and identification of children at risk for failure in the regular education classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
6.
FuchsL. S., & DenoS. L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232–243.
7.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
8.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1990). Identifying an alternative reading measure for curriculum-based measurement. Nashville, TN: Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD., & HamlettC. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 103–110. [Research Report No. 417].
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & FergusonC. (1990). Effects of instructional consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Nashville, TN: Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD., & MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–29.
12.
GuthrieJ. T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(3), 294–300.
13.
GuthrieJ. T.SiefertM.BurnhamN. A., & CaplanR. I. (1974). The maze technique to assess, monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28(2), 161–168.
14.
HelmkeA., & SchraderF. W. (1987). Interactional effects of instructional quality and teacher judgment accuracy on achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 91–98.
15.
HogeR. D., & ColadarciT. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313.
16.
HopkinsK. D.GeorgeC. A., & WilliamsD. D. (1985). The concurrent validity of standardized achievement tests by content area using teachers' ratings as criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 177–182.
17.
KaplanA. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.
18.
LeinhardtG., & GreenoJ. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.
MarstonD., & DenoS. L. (1982). Implementation of direct and repeated measurement in the school setting (Research Report No. 106). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
21.
PearsonP. D., & JohnsonD. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
22.
PrescottG. A.BalowI. H.HoganT. P., & FarrR. C. (1984). Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT-6). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
23.
RyckmanD. B. (1982). Gray Oral Reading Tests: Some reliability and validity data with learning disabled children. Psychological Reports, 50, 673–674.
24.
SalviaJ. A., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1978). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
ShinnM. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
26.
SpacheG. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. Elementary School Journal, 53, 410–413.
27.
StahlS. A. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (2nd ed.). In WillsonV. L. (Ed.), Academic achievement and aptitude testing: Practical applications and test reviews (pp. 158–167). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
28.
StanovichK. E.CunninghamA. E., & FreemanD. J. (1984). Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 668–677.
29.
ValenciaS. W., & PearsonP. D. (1988). Principles for classroom comprehension assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 26–35.
