Validity Evidence for the Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

Abstract

An essential component of a response to intervention (RTI) framework is a screening process that is both accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity evidence for the Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) to determine its potential for use within a screening process. Participants included 226 students in Grades 1 to 5. Validity evidence was analyzed through (a) correlation with performance on concurrent, individually administered oral reading fluency (ORF) measures, (b) correlation with performance on concurrently administered reading comprehension measures, (c) correlation of fall and winter TOSREC performance with a state reading outcome measure administered in spring, (d) a binary classification analysis to predict whether students met grade-level performance benchmarks on a state reading assessment, and (e) a stepwise regression analysis examining the variance in performance on a state assessment accounted for by TOSREC and ORF. The concurrent correlations of TOSREC with ORF were high, with the exception of the fall fourth grade administration. Correlations of TOSREC and outcome measures were consistent with those of ORF. The binary classification analysis examining the TOSREC’s ability to accurately predict those students who did not meet grade-level performance benchmarks on the state’s reading assessment demonstrated high classification accuracy (90%) as well as high sensitivity (78%) and specificity (86%). Finally, a regression analysis indicated that the TOSREC accounted for additional unique variance in state assessment performance above and beyond ORF. Implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

assessment literacy screening

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Bryant

J. D.

(2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.

Data Recognition Corporation. (2009). Idaho Standards Achievement Tests, Spring 2009 Technical Report. Retrieved from http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/assessment/ISAT/technicalReports.htm

Deno

S. L.

(1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2004). The past, present and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hosp

M. K.

Jenkins

J. R.

(2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.

Idaho State Department of Education. (2009). Student Ethnicity Statistics, 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/statistics/student_ethnicity.htm

Jenkins

J. R.

(2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities responsiveness-to-intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Jenkins

J. R.

Hudson

R. F.

Johnson

E. S.

(2007). Screening for service delivery in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–599.

10.

Johnson

E. S.

Jenkins

J. R.

Petscher

Catts

H. W.

(2009). Screening for early identification and intervention: How accurate are existing tools and procedures in predicting first grade reading outcomes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–194.

11.

Kameenui

E. J.

(1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don’t fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, 376–383.

12.

Kuhn

M. R.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Meisinger

E. B.

(2010). Review of research: Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 223–231.

13.

LaBerge

Samuels

S. J.

(1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

14.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010a). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs.

15.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010b). Screening tools chart. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org

16.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual for the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress and Achievement Level Tests. Portland, OR: Author.

17.

Pearson

P. D.

(2006). Foreword. In Goodman

K. S.

(Ed.), The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does (pp. v–xix). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

18.

Pressley

Hilden

Shankland

(2005). An evaluation of end-grade-3 DIBELS: Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little (Tech. rep.). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Literacy Achievement Research Center.

19.

Samuels

S. J.

(2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In Samuels

S. J.

Farstrup

A. E.

(Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 40–63). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

20.

Samuels

S. J.

(2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency? Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563–566.

21.

Shinn

M. J.

(2010, April). Making progress monitoring and screening evidence-based AND practical. Presentation at the Idaho State RTI conference, Boise, ID.

22.

Wagner

R. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

Pearson

N. A.

(2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

23.

Wilson

B. J.

Reichmuth

(1985). Early-screening programs: When is predictive accuracy sufficient? Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 182–188.