Reliability and Validity of Curriculum-Based Informal Reading Inventories

Datos Bibliográficos

ID10722425
AutoresLynn S Fuchs (0000-0003-2099-5247), Douglas Fuchs (0000-0002-5094-1023), Stanley L Deno
Año1982
Volumen18
Número1
Páginas6
Fecha de publicación1982-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaReading Research Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0034-0553 • E-ISSN: 1936-2722
EditorialJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/747536
OpenAlexW1985392762
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas7
Referencias citadas3

INFORMAL READING INVENTORIES (IRIs) are endorsed frequently by textbook authors and teacher trainers. However, the reliability and validity of standard and salient IRI procedures rarely have been investigated. Employing 91 elementary-age students, this study examined the technical adequacy of (a) choosing a criterion of 95% accuracy for word recognition to determine an instructional level, (b) arbitrarily selecting a passage to represent the difficulty level of a basal reader, and (c) employing one-level floors and ceilings to demarcate levels beyond which behavior is not sampled. Correlational and congruency analyses supported the external validity of the 95% standard but questioned the reliability and validity of passage sampling procedures and one-level floors and ceilings. Sampling over occasions and test forms is discussed as a more valid IRI procedure

Curriculum · Curriculum development · Curriculum mapping · Curriculum-based measurement · Developmental psychology · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Psychometrics · Reading (process) · Reading comprehension · Reliability (semiconductor) · Test validity · Validity · Computer Science · Digital Accessibility for Disabilities · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development · Text Readability and Simplification