Examining the Measurement Precision and Invariance of the Revised Get Ready to Read!

Abstract

Children’s emergent literacy skills are highly predictive of later reading abilities. To determine which children have weaker emergent literacy skills and are in need of intervention, it is necessary to assess emergent literacy skills accurately and reliably. In this study, 1,351 children were administered the Revised Get Ready to Read! (GRTR-R), and an item response theory analysis was used to evaluate the item-level reliability of the measure. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted to examine whether items function similarly between subpopulations of children. The GRTR-R had acceptable reliability for children whose ability level was just below the mean. DIF for a small number of items was present for only two comparisons—children who were older versus younger and children who were White versus African American. These results demonstrate that the GRTR-R has acceptable reliability and limited DIF, enabling the screener to identify those at risk for developing reading problems.

Keywords

assessment reading early literacy preschool age

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57, 289–300. doi:10.2307/1165312

Bennett

K. J.

Brown

K. S.

Boyle

Racine

Offord

(2003). Does low reading achievement at school entry cause conduct problems? Social Science & Medicine, 56, 2443–2448. doi:10.1016/S0277-0536(02)00247-2

Campbell

F. A.

Ramey

C. T.

(1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772. doi:10.3102/00028312032004743

Chall

J. S.

Jacobs

V. A.

Baldwin

L. E.

(1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Embretson

S. E.

Reise

S. P.

(2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hanson

B. A.

(1998). Uniform DIF and DIF defined by differences in item response functions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 244–253. doi:10.3102/10769986023003244

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Hulin

C. L.

Lissak

R. I.

Drasgow

(1982). Recovery of two- and three-parameter logistic item characteristic curves: A Monte Carlo study. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 249–260. doi:10.1177/014662168200600301

Karoly

L. A.

Kilburn

M. R.

Bigelow

J. H.

Caulkins

J. P.

Cannon

J. S.

(2001). Assessing costs and benefits of early childhood intervention programs: Overview and application to the Starting Early Starting Smart program. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.

10.

Lonigan

C. J.

Allan

N. P.

Lerner

M. D.

(2011). Assessment of preschool early literacy skills: Linking children’s educational needs with empirically supported instructional activities. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 488–501. doi:10.1002/pits.20569

11.

Lonigan

C. J.

Schatschneider

Westberg

(2008). Impact of code-focused interventions on young children’s early literacy skills. Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

12.

Lonigan

C. J.

Wagner

R. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

(2007). Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

13.

Lonigan

C. J.

Wilson

S. B.

(2008). Report on the Revised Get Ready to Read! screening tool: Psychometrics and normative information (Tech. Rep.). New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

14.

Lord

F. M.

(1968). An analysis of the verbal scholastic aptitude test using Birnbaum’s three-parameter logistic model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 989–1020. doi:10.1177/001316446802800401

15.

Matson

S. C.

Haglund

K. A.

(2000). Relationship between scholastic and health behaviors and reading level in adolescent females. Clinical Pediatrics, 39, 275–280. doi:10.1177/000992280003900503

16.

Meade

A. W.

(2010). A taxonomy of differential functioning effect size indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 728–743. doi:10.1037/a0018966

17.

Mellenbergh

G. J.

(1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105–118. doi:10.2307/1164960

18.

Molfese

V. J.

Modglin

A. A.

Beswick

J. L.

Neamon

J. D.

Berg

S. A.

Berg

C. J.

Molnar

(2006). Letter knowledge, phonological processing, and print knowledge: Skill development in nonreading preschool children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 296–305. doi:10.1177/00222194060390040401

19.

Molfese

V. J.

Molfese

D. L.

Modglin

A. T.

Walker

Neamon

(2004). Screening early reading skills in preschool children: Get Ready to Read. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 136–150. doi:10.1177/073428290402200204

20.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

21.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Reading 2009: National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

22.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

23.

Phillips

B. M.

Lonigan

C. J.

Wyatt

M. A.

(2009). Predictive validity of the Get Ready to Read! screener: Concurrent and long-term relations with reading-related skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 133–147. doi:10.1177/0022219408326209

24.

Ponterotto

J. G.

Ruckdeschel

D. E.

(2007). An overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997–1014. doi:10.2466/PMS.105.3.997-1014

25.

Reckase

M. D.

(1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207–230. doi:10.2307/1164671

26.

Sinar

E. F.

Zickar

M. J.

(2002). Evaluating the robustness of graded response model and classical test theory parameter estimates to deviant items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 181–191. doi:10.1177/01421602026002005

27.

Stout

W. F.

(1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293–325. doi:10.1007/BF02295289

28.

Thissen

(2001). IRTLRDIF v.2.0.b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning [Computer software]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~dthissen/dl.html

29.

Whitehurst

G. J.

(2001). The NCLD Get Ready to Read! screening tool technical report. Stony Brook: State University of New York at Stony Brook, National Center for Learning Disabilities.

30.

Whitehurst

G. J.

Lonigan

C. J.

(1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06247.x

31.

Whitehurst

G. J.

Lonigan

C. J.

(2001). Get Ready to Read! screening tool. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

32.

Wilson

S. B.

Lonigan

C. J.

(2010). Identifying preschool children at risk of later reading difficulties: Evaluation of two emergent literacy screening tools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 62–67. doi:10.1177/0022219409345007