1. Method Participants. Approximately 64 second (43.8%) and third (56.3%) grade students. 51.6% female and 48.6% male Measures Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Administered by school personnel 3 times per year (fall, winter, and spring). Spring scores were used for analyses. Students read from 3 one minute grade level passages, and the median score was recorded. Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) Instructional level determined by spring scores based on fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. Curriculum Based Assessment for Instructional Design (CBA-ID) Administered by researchers one time in the spring. Students read from 3 books (1 minute each) based on their BAS instructional level. The number of words read correctly divided by the total words read was recorded and the median score was used for analyses. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Department of Educational Psychology Sandra M. Pulles, Kathrin E. Maki, & Matthew K. Burns Relationship Between Reading Inventory Instructional Level and Student Reading Performance School Psychology 250 Education Sciences Building 56 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Contacts: Sandra M. Pulles: moran122@umn.edu Kathrin E. Maki: makix312@umn.edu Matthew K. Burns: burns259@umn.edu College of Education + Human Development Introduction Instructional match is closely associated with improved student learning (Burns, 2007; Daly, Martens, Kilmer, & Massie, 1996) Instructional level occurs when students have sufficient background knowledge to interact with the material, yet still experience some level of challenge (Betts, 1946). Frustrational: <93% Instructional: 93-97% Independent: 97-100% Two ways to assess instructional level 1.Informal Reading Inventories (IRI) Fountas & Pinnell (1996) 20-30 minutes per student; low psychometric properties Provide students 2.Curriculum Based Assessment for Instructional Design (CBA-ID ; Gickling & Havertape, 1981). Students read from instructional level text for 1 minute and the number of words read correctly is recorded and accuracy is computed. 5 minutes per student; high psychometric properties Research Questions 1.What level of agreement is there between instructional level estimates from reading three books from the same reading level? 2.To what extent does the estimate of instructional level from a reading inventory agree with instructional level estimates from reading the corresponding leveled book? 3.How do reading skills affect agreement between estimate of instructional level from a reading inventory and estimates from reading the corresponding leveled book? Discussion Students did not consistently read with accuracy from books rated at their IRI instructional level Students read with 93 to 97% accuracy about 28% of the time Struggling readers frequently failed to read with 93% accuracy High readers were not challenged enough by their IRI instructional level Psychometric issues associated with IRIs make it difficult to obtain an accurate student instructional level Reliability-inconsistency across books Validity-use of IRIs for determining instructional level Matching instructional material with student skill level results in improved student outcomes (Burns, 2007) Students should therefore be reading at their instructional level to ensure adequate reading growth Limitations Many students were higher readers therefore limiting generalizability to other skill levels No direct measure of comprehension was used There was no control over prior exposure thus it is unknown whether or not students were familiar with the material Mean (SD) Frustration n (%) Reading Level Instructional n (%) Independent n (%) Spring Benchmark Oral Reading Fluency 128.08 (48.71) NA Reading 1 Accuracy 96.7% (3.27%) 8 (12.5%) 23 (35.9%) 33 (51.6%) Reading 2 Accuracy 96.4% (4.91%) 10 (15.6%) 15 (23.4%) 39 (60.9%) Reading 3 Accuracy 96.1% (5.9%) 11 (17.2%) 17 (26.6%) 36 (56.3%) Median Accuracy 96.7% (3.6%) 10 (15.6%) 18 (28.1%) 36 (56.3%) Reading 1 AccuracyReading 2 AccuracyReading 3 Accuracy Reading 1 Accuracy r =.47*r =.61* Reading 2 Accuracy  =.67* r =.68* Reading 3 Accuracy  =.67*  =.59* Reading 1 AccuracyReading 2 AccuracyReading 3 Accuracy Reading 1 Accuracy 70.3%68.8% Reading 2 Accuracyk =.49*67.2% Reading 3 Accuracyk =.47*k =.42* Median Percent Accurate CBA-ID Categorical Score IRI Instructional Levelr =.65tau =.65 Group Frustration n (%) Instructional n (%) Independent n (%) Low – 25th Percentile or Less 7 (58%) 5 (41.7%) 0 (0.0%) Middle – 26th to 75th Percentile 2 (9.5%) 4 (19.0%) 15 (71.4%) High – 76th Percentile or Higher 1 (3.2%) 9 (29.0%) 21 (67.7%) Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Data Table 2 Correlations Among Accuracy Measures from Three Reading Performance Assessments Table 3 Percent Agreement and Kappa Among Accuracy Measures from Three Reading Performance Assessments Table 4 Correlation between IRI Instructional Level and CBA-ID Accuracy and Categorical Score Table 5 Number and Percentage of Median Accuracy Scores from Three Reading Performance Assessments that Fell within the Frustration, Instructional, and Independent Level by Skill Group Results LowAverageHigh 2 nd Grade < 6969-120> 120 3 rd Grade < 8484-140> 140