Reading Assessment

1. Reading Assessment A Time for Change

2. The Past • The WISC, WRAT, and Bender • Used IQ score to determine expected reading level. • Used GE from standardized test to indicate current reading level. • Attempted to use GE from standardized test to select instructional materials for student. • Attempted to use GE to select intervention techniques. • Attempted to use below average performance on visual-perception tasks as cause of reading difficulties. Source: Portia Blackman (197?)

3. The Past Should Not Be Repeated! • IQ scores may not be accurate basis to determine reading potential. • The obtained GE scores may not reflect student’s actual level of reading achievement. • Even if obtained GE were accurate, it could not be used directly to select instructional materials. • GE scores do not indicate what type of intervention is needed. • Even if poor performance on visual perceptual tasks and reading difficulties appear to be correlated, the relationship is not causal. Source: Gerken, K. (1995, 2003)

4. Reading Assessment 2003 • Review current work. • Review any results from multi-skill standardized group tests or reading tests. • Review attendance. • Interview students, teacher, parents. • Determine if any interventions have been implemented.

5. Reading Assessment 2003continued • Determine expectancies in reading. • What are the perceived and self-reported attitudes of the student toward reading? • What are the current opportunities and demands for reading? • What is the environmental response to the student’s reading problems? • Determine whether there are difficulties with word analysis, comprehension or vocabulary. • Create an Informal Reading Inventory, using the student’s own textbooks.

6. Assessing Word Recognition • Should be assessed in as much context as possible. • Do not use nonsense words to assess the word recognition skills of adolescents. • A word recognition test should be considered just a sample of word recognition behaviors that could be assessed. • Word recognition tests should be of adequate length to assure stable results.

7. Reading Comprehension • There is agreement that the purpose of reading is comprehension, but a lack of agreement about how to measure it. • Six common approaches to measuring comprehension: • Ask questions requiring either recognition or recall. • Have students paraphrase a story. • Have students attempt top retell a story verbatim. • Have students fill in missing words (cloze technique). • Have students select the correct word to complete a sentence (mazes). • Present an original sentence and ask student to paraphrase the sentence to check for meaning (sentence verification).

8. Reading Comprehension • Each approach has assets and limitations. • For example, the KABC has the child gesture his or her understanding of a sentence. • Need to use more than one method across texts of various styles. • Should assess comprehension within a student’s own curriculum. • Determine if the child is having comprehension problems because of deficits in background knowledge, decoding skills, vocabulary, syntax, or comprehension strategies.

9. Dilemmas in Reading Assessment • Curriculum match-does the test measure what is being taught? • Curriculum match-most of the standardized instruments do not measure comprehension strategies. • Match the test with the purpose for the assessment. • There are few technically adequate reading tests. • Be careful about generalization-talk about specific reading behaviors, not READING.