The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion, construct, and concurrent validity of four informal reading comprehension measures: question answering tests, recall measures, oral passage reading tests, and cloze techniques. Mildly and moderately handicapped middle and junior high school boys (N = 70) were administered the informal measures in one sitting, with four passages equally represented across the four measures and with the administration order of measures counterbalanced. Criterion tests, the Reading Comprehension and Word Study Skills subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test, also were administered in a separate sitting. Results indicated that the correct oral reading rate score demonstrated the strongest criterion validity, with adequate construct and concurrent validity. A second acceptable index was the written recall measure. Implications for designing reading comprehension monitoring procedures are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alderson, J.C. (1978). Cloze procedures. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The eighth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1171-1174). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
2.
Armbruster, B.B., Stevens, R.J., & Rosenshine, B. (1977). Analyzing content coverage and emphasis: A study of three curricula and two tests (Tech. Rep. No. 26) Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
3.
Brown, A.L., & Smiley, S.S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
6.
Elley, W.B. (1976). The `cloze' procedure: A method of testing, teaching, and assessing readability. In D. B. Doake & B.T. O'Rourke (Eds.), New directions for teaching: Selected proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Reading (pp. 55-71). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Educational Institute.
7.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516, 575-578.
8.
Fuchs, L.S. (1981). The concurrent validity of progress measures of basal reading material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Minnesota, Minneapolis.
9.
Fuchs, L.S. (1982). Reading. In P.K. Mirkin, L. S. Fuchs, & S. L. Deno, (Eds.), Considerations for designing a continuous evaluation system: An integrative review (Monograph No. 20, pp. 29-74). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1983). Improving the reliability of curriculum-based measures of academic skills for psychoeducational decision making. Diagnostique, 8, 135-149.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.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.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., & Maxwell, L. (1987). Interactive effects of reading mode, production format, and structural importance of text among reading disabled pupils. Manuscript submitted for publication. (Available from L. S. Fuchs, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.).
Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J.C. (1982b). Technical review kit for the Stanford Achievement Test seriesNew York: Psychological Corp.
16.
Gates, A.I. (1921). An experimental and statistical study of reading and reading tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 303-313, 378-391, 445-464.
17.
Hansen, C.L.M. (1979). Chicken soup and other forms of comprehension. In J.E. Button, T. Lovitt., & T. D. Rowland, (Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation.Baltimore: University Park Press.
18.
Jenkins, J.R., Heliotis, J., Haynes, M., & Beck, K. (1986). Does passive learning account for disabled readers' comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations?Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 69-75.
19.
Jenkins, J.R., & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448-453.
20.
Johnson, R.E. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the instructional importance of the linguistic unit. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12-20.
21.
Johnston, P.B. (1982). Implications of basic research for the assessment of reading comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 206). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 201 987).
22.
Mirkin, P.K., Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Considerations in designing a continuous evaluation system: An integrative review (Monograph No. 20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
23.
Peterson, J.Greenlaw, M.J., & Tierney, R.J. (1978). Assessing instructional placement with the IRI: The effectiveness of comprehension questions. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 247-250.
24.
Poplin, M.Gray, R., Larsen, S., Banikowski, A., & Mehring, T. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in language and non-language disabled children at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 46-53.
25.
Readence, J.E., & Moore, D.W. (1983). Why questions? A historical perspective on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Reading, 26, 306-313.
26.
Sassenrath, J.M. (1972). Alpha factor analyses of reading measures at the elementary, secondary, and college levels. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 304-315.
27.
Shapiro, E.S., & Derr, T.F. (in press). An examination of overlap between reading curricula and standardized achievement tests. The Journal of Special Education.
28.
Suhorsky, J. (1975). An investigation of the relationship between undeleted text preceding a cloze test and cloze test results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
29.
Thompson, R.H.White, K.R., & Morgan, D.P. (1982). Teacherstudent interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220-236.
30.
Tuinman, J.J., Blanton, W.E., & Gray, G. (1975). A note on cloze as a measure of comprchension. Journal of Psychology, 90, 159-162.
31.
Walker, H.M., & Lev, J. (1953). Statistical inferenceNew York: Holt.
32.
Yalow, E.S., & Popham, W.J. (1983). Content validity at the crossroads. Educational Researcher, 12(8), 10-14, 21.
33.
Ysseldyke, J.E. (1979). Psychoeducational decision making. In J.E. Ysseldyke & P.K. Mirkin (eds.), Proceedings of the Minnesota Roundtable Conference on Assessment of Learning Disabled Children (Monograph No. 8). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
