Maze tasks have appealing properties as progress-monitoring tools, but there is a need for a thorough examination of the psychometric properties of Maze tasks among middle school students. We evaluated form effects, reliability, validity, and practice effects of Maze among students in Grades 6 through 8. We administered the same (familiar) and novel Maze passages for progress monitoring of a reading intervention among typical readers (n = 588), struggling readers receiving researcher-provided intervention (n = 471), and struggling readers not receiving intervention (n = 284). Form effects accounted for significant variance in Maze performance. Familiar passages had greater test–retest reliability than novel passages. Both administrative conditions had similar, moderate correlations (validity coefficients) with other measures of reading fluency and comprehension. There were also significant practice effects. Students who read the same passage showed steeper slopes in Maze performance than students who read different passages over time. Practice effects were influenced by beginning levels of reading comprehension and by intervention status.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.
2.
ArdoinS. P.WittJ. C.SuldoS. M.ConnellJ. E.KoeningJ. L.ResetarJ. L.. . . WilliamsK. L. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a Maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218–233.
3.
Brown-ChidseyR.DavisL.MayaC. (2003). Sources of variance in curriculum-based measures of silent reading. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 363–377.
4.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinB. J. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.
5.
ChristT. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.
6.
ChristT. J.ArdoinS. P. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Passage equivalence and selection. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55–75.
7.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DodrillC. B.TroupinA. S. (1975). Effects of repeated administrations of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery among chronic epileptics. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 161, 185–190.
10.
DunnE. K.EckertT. L. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement in reading: A comparison of similar versus challenging material. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 24–46.
11.
EspinC. A.FoegenA. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.
12.
EspinC. A.WallaceT.LembkeE.CampbellH.LongJ. D. (2010). Creating a progress-monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high-stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 60–75.
13.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.LyonG. R.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
14.
FrancisD. J.SantiK. L.BarrC.FletcherJ. M.VariscoA.FoormanB. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.
15.
FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC.CarlsonC. (2000). Introduction to individual growth curve analysis. In DrotarD. (Ed.), Handbook of research in pediatrics and clinical child psychology. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
19.
GriffithA.VanDerHeydenA. M.SkokutM.LillesE. (2009). Progress monitoring in oral reading fluency within the context of response to intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 13–23.
GuthrieJ. T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 294–299.
22.
HausknechtJ. P.HalpertJ. A.DiPaoloN.GerrardM. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 373–385.
23.
HausknechtJ. P.TrevorC. O.FarrJ. (2002). Retaking ability tests in a selection setting: Implications for practice effects, training performance, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 243–254.
24.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.
25.
HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. S.LutzJ. G. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 28, 188–202.
26.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellR. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and Maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.
27.
JenkinsJ. R.ZumetaR.DupreeO.JohnsonK. (2005). Measuring gains in reading ability with passage reading fluency. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 245–253.
28.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
LezakM. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. (2010). What is progress monitoring?Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org
32.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H.AxtellP. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338.
33.
PowersD. E.RockD. A. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 93–118.
34.
ReschlyA.BuschT.BettsJ.DenoS.LongJ. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469.
35.
ShinnM. R.DenoS. L.EspinC. A. (2000). Technical adequacy of the Maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172.
36.
ShinnM. R.GoodR.KnutsonN.TillyW.CollinsV. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.
37.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading Maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
38.
SilberglittB.BurnsM. K.MadyunN.LailK. E. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in Schools, 43, 527–535.
39.
SladeP. D.TownerB. D.RosenbaumG.MartinsI. P.LuisH.BernardoM.. . . DeRouenT. A. (2008). The serial use of child neurocognitive tests: Development versus practice effects. Psychological Assessment, 20, 361–369.
TichaR.EspinC.WaymanM. W. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading aloud and Maze selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 132–142.
42.
TorgesenJ. K.NettleS.HowardP.WinterbottomR. (2005). Brief report of a study to investigate the relationship between several brief measures of reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test—Reading in 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th grades (FCRR Technical Report 6). Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/Progress_monitoring_report.pdf
43.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR.RashotteC. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
44.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonC.. . . FrancisD. J. (2010a). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.
45.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.BarthA. E.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.. . . FrancisD. J. (2010b). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 931–956.
46.
WaymanC.WallaceT.WileyH.TichaR.EspinC. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
47.
WilliamsK. T. (2002). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
48.
WoehlkeA. B.WilderD. H. (1963). Differences in difficulty of Forms A and B of the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability. Personnel Psychology, 16, 395–398.
49.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
