The Early Literacy Knowledge and Skills (ELKS) instrument was informed by the work of Ferreiro and Teberosky based on the notion that young children could be differentiated according to levels of sophistication in their understanding of the rules of written language. As an initial step to evaluate the instrument for teaching purposes, the present study examines its psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency reliability, model-data fit, item discrimination, match between item difficulty and ability range in the sample, and item difficulty according to Ferreiro and Teberosky’s theory of early literacy development. Overall, the ELKS instrument showed good psychometric properties in these areas, although two items in particular may require further investigation and possible revision according to the model-data fit index. Future directions to investigate the potential classroom application of the instrument are suggested.
AdamsR. J.WilsonM.WuM. (1997). Multilevel item response models: An approach to errors in variables regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 47-76.
2.
AllenM. J.YenW. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
3.
BarringerE. (2009). Early literacy knowledge and skills: The development of a measure of early literacy and an investigation of the skills associated with single word reading (Doctoral thesis, The University of Melbourne). Available from Melbourne University Research Collections (UMER) database. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/35450
4.
BarringerE.BrownP. M.ChanM. C. E.CareE. (2009). Early literacy knowledge and skills instrument. Parkville, Victoria, Australia: The University of Melbourne.
5.
BlackP.WilsonM.YaoS.-Y. (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9, 71-123.
6.
ChanM. C. E. (2012). Standardised assessment in early literacy: Reconciling different perspectives and methods (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
7.
ChanM. C. E. (2013). Young learners: An exploration of the notion “by different paths to common outcomes” in early literacy assessment. In DunstonP. J. (Eds.), 62nd yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 75-92). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association.
8.
ClayM. M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
9.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
FanX. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 357-381. doi:10.1177/0013164498058003001
11.
FerreiroE. (1991). Literacy acquisition and the representation of language. In KamiiC.ManningM.ManningG. (Eds.), Early literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole language (pp. 31-54). West Haven, CT: National Education Association.
12.
FerreiroE.TeberoskyA. (1982). Literacy before schooling (CastroK. Goodman, Trans.). Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. (Original work published 1979)
13.
FurrR. M.BacharachV. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
14.
GoodmanY. M.ReyesI.McArthurK. (2005). Emilia Ferreiro: Searching for children’s understandings about literacy as a cultural object. Language Arts, 82, 318-323.
15.
KatoY.UedaA.OzakiK.MukaigawaY. (1998). Japanese preschoolers’ theories about the “Hiragana” system of writing. Linguistics and Education, 10, 219-232. doi:10.1016/s0898-5898(99)80109-0
16.
KieftenbeldV.NatesanP.EddyC. (2011). An item response theory analysis of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 443-454. doi:10.1177/0734282910391062
17.
MastersG. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174. doi:10.1007/BF02296272
18.
MastersG. N.WrightB. D. (1997). The partial credit model. In van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 101-121). New York, NY: Springer.
19.
MurakiE. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176. doi:10.1177/014662169201600206
20.
RuizN. T. (1995). A young deaf child learns to write: Implications for literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 49, 206-217.
21.
SulzbyE.TealeW. H. (2003). The development of the young children and the emergence of literacy. In FloodJ.LappD.SquireJ. R.JensenJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 300-313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
TinsleyH. E.WeissD. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376. doi:10.1037/h0076640
23.
TolchinskyL.TeberoskyA. (1998). The development of word segmentation and writing in two scripts. Cognitive Development, 13, 1-24. doi:10.1016/s0885-2014(98)90018-1
24.
WatsonL. M. (2009). Early print concepts: Insights from work with young deaf children. Deafness & Education International, 11, 191-209. doi:10.1002/dei.267
25.
WhitehurstG. J.LoniganC. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872.
26.
WilsonM. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
WrightB. D.LinacreJ. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt83b.htm
WuM. L.AdamsR. (2007). Applying the Rasch model to psycho-social measurement: A practical approach. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Educational Measurement Solutions.
30.
WuM. L.AdamsR. J.WilsonM. R.HaldaneS. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest version 2.0: Generalised response modelling software manual. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
31.
WuM. L.AdamsR. J.WilsonM. R.HaldaneS. A. (2008). ConQuest: Generalised response modelling software (Version 2) [Computer program]. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
32.
WuM. L.TamH.-P.JenT.-H. (in press). Educational measurement for applied researchers—Theory into practice. Singapore: Springer.
33.
YadenD. B.Jr.TsaiT. (2012). Learning how to write in English and Chinese: Young bilingual kindergarten and first grade children explore the similarities and differences between writing systems. In BauerE. B.GortM. (Eds.), Early biliteracy development: Exploring young learners’ use of their linguistic resources (pp. 55-83). New York, NY: Routledge.
