1. Reliability and Validity of the Reading Level Assessment and the “Flash” Word Recognition Automaticity Measure Grace T. Craig -Grace.Craig@utah.edu Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields University of Utah Reading Clinic R. Darrell Morris Appalachian State University

2. Methods 4 schools – 2 = Title 1 1 = public, 1 = parochial – 2 = non-Title 1both = public & mixed SES 192 students in G2-G5 in March, 2006 Rank ordered DIBELS or QRI of each grade within a school, then sampled 12 students: 4 high, 4 average, 4 poor to achieve a representative distribution for testing

3. Methods 135 minutes of assessment in 3 sessions Two forms of Reading Level Assessment (RLA) and a standardized test- Gray Oral Reading Test Manual and computer presentations of Flash Tests and presentations were counterbalanced Manual flash interrater differences = n.s.

5. Reading Level Criteria

6. Alternate Form Reliability To what extent are RLA Form A scores equivalent to RLA Form B scores? To what extent are computer presentation Flash scores equivalent to manual presentation Flash scores?

7. Results: Alternate Form Reliability Spearman’s Rho Correlations ** p <.01

8. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Non-parametric paired hypothesis test) Z p RLA Form B – RLA Form A -1.738 a.082 Flash Comp – Flash Manual -.610 a.542 a. Based on positive ranks.

9. Criterion Validity To what extent are Flash scores and RLA scores consistent with scores achieved on a “flagship” standardized reading measure, the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT)?

10. Results: Criterion Validity Spearman’s Rho Correlations ** p <.01

11. Content Validity Is the Reading Level Assessment representative of grade level benchmarks? Are the graded passages of the Reading Level Assessment representative of their respective grades?

12. Results: Content Validity Median Grade Equivalent by Grade

13. Accuracy and rate of second grade students on Grade 2 passage. Accuracy and rate of third grade students on Grade 3 passage. Accuracy and rate of fourth grade students on Grade 4 passage.Accuracy and rate of fifth grade students on Grade 5 passage. 52% pass53% pass 59% pass51% pass

14. Conclusions: Alternate Form Reliability RLA A and RLA B seem to be equivalent forms Manual Flash and Computer Flash seem to be equivalent forms Examiners can be trained to mimic a 300 ms eye fixation without significant difference from a computer

15. Conclusions: Criterion Validity RLA Form A and RLA Form B are strongly correlated with a popular standardized oral reading test, the GORT The Flash is strongly correlated with the GORT These correlations indicate that the Reading Level Assessment and the Flash instrument are, like the GORT, testing reading ability

16. Conclusions: Content Validity The Reading Level Assessment seems to have high validity for identifying students’ instructional reading levels The Flash seems to have high validity for identifying students’ instructional levels The GORT seems to identify student instructional levels which are inflated by at least a year, and sometimes more than two years