Towards a curriculum‐based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low‐progress readers using standardised passages: A validity study

Educational Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 471-478

  Madelaine, Alison ^a   Wheldall, Kevin ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937186738     PISSN: 01443410     EISSN: 14695820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0144341980180408     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Borg, W.R., and Gall, M.D., 1989. Educational Research: an introduction, 5th Edn, New York: Longman.
2. Carver, R.P., 1992. What do standardised tests of reading comprehension measure in terms of efficiency, accuracy, and rate?,. Reading Research Quarterly, 27: 347–359.
3. Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., and Chiang, B., 1982. Identifying valid measures of reading,. Exceptional Children, 49: 36–45.
4. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., and Maxwell, L., 1988. The validity of informal reading comprehension measures,. Remedial and Special Education, 92: 20–28.
5. Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., Karlsen, B., and Merwin, J.C., 1982, 1983. Stanford Achievement Tests, Iowa City, Harcourt: Brace, Jovanovich.
6. Jenkins, J.R., and Jewell, M., 1993. Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: reading aloud and maze,. Exceptional Children, 59: 421–432.
7. MacGinitie, W.H., Kamons, J., Kowalski, R.L., MacGinitie, R.K., and McKay, T., 1978. Gates‐MacGinitie Reading Tests, 2nd Edn, Chicago: Riverside.
8. Macquarie University Special Education Centre. 1996. “ MULTILIT ”. In Word Attack Skills–Revised Experimental Edition, Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.
9. Macquarie University Special Education Centre. 1998. “ MULTILIT ”. In Reading Tutor Program, Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.
10. Madelaine, A., and Wheldall, K., in press. Curriculum‐based measurement of reading: a critical review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education.
11. McKay, M., 1996. The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Revised ‐‐ systematically biased?,. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 259–266.
12. Neale, M.D., 1988. Neale Analysis of Reading Ability ‐‐ Revised, Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
13. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. 1981. Burt Word Reading Test: New Zealand Revision, Wellington, NZ: Lithoprint (NZ) Ltd.
14. Parker, R., Hasbrouk, J.E., and Tindal, G., 1992. Greater validity for oral reading fluency: can miscues help?. Journal of Special Education, 254: 492–503.
15. Prescott, G.A., Balow, I.H., Hogan, T.P., and Farr, R.C., 1984. Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT‐6), San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
16. Shinn, M.R., Knutson, N., Good, R.H., Tilly, W.D., and Collins, V., 1992. Curriculum‐based measurement of oral reading fluency: an analysis of its relation to reading,. School Psychology Review, 21: 459–479.
17. Wheldall, K., 1996. The Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages: Experimental Edition, Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.
18. Wheldall, K., and Madelaine, A., 1997. Should we measure reading progress and if so how? Extrapolating the curriculum‐based measurement model for monitoring low‐progress readers,. Special Education Perspectives, 6: 29–35.