Gray oral reading test 5 review

Evaluations

Running head: ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

Assessment Evaluation 1

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

Analysis of Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)

Summary of Assessment

DAR-2 is a comprehensive individual assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses

in reading and language, and informs test administrators/examiners (teachers, specialists,

psychologists, etc.) of instructional interventions. DAR aids professionals in distinguishing

reading strengths and deficits at each grade level by concentrating on word recognition, oral

reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading comprehension, spelling, word meaning and

analysis, print and phonological awareness, letters, and sounds.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment

The DAR is administered to students individually and untimed. Benchmarks for mastery

are provided for each test and their component parts. Untimed administration aids students with

disabilities and special needs that may struggle with reading proficiencies; the test has the ability

to separate known groups of children that may be expected to have different levels

of reading proficiency.

The weaknesses of the assessment include the limited reliability provided for some of the

DAR tests; studies have shown that ESL students typically scored lower than the control group.

DAR is not a true assessment of their oral or cognitive abilities in contexts of their own spoken

language.

Justification and Use of the Assessment

DAR meets the technical requirements for reliability and validity. Validity is proven

across contexts of content, criterion-related, and construct; validity supported that instrument

tested for intended purpose. It is reliable for providing professional educators with a

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

comprehensive assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses in reading and language and

informing instructional interventions.

DATA COLLECTION FOR ASSESSMENT EVALUATIONS

Name of Instrument Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)

Author(s) of Instrument Florence G. Roswell. Jeanne S. Chall, Mary E. Curtis, Gail

Kearns.

Date of Publication 2006

Publisher PRO-ED

1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) The learning areas include word recognition, oral reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading

comprehension, spell, word analysis and meaning, print and phonological awareness, letter

sounds.

2. Describe the age range. Grade Levels: K-12

3. State the purpose of the instrument. Designed to function as an assessment of individual reading ability for the DARTTS testing

and teaching program. It provides a comprehensive assessment of children’s strengths and

weaknesses in reading and language and informs instructional interventions.

4. Describe the examiner qualifications.

Qualified examiners: Teachers, Reading Specialists, school psychologists, diagnosticians

5. Describe the available scores. Word Recognition, Oral Reading Accuracy and Fluency (optional), Silent Reading

Comprehension, Spelling, Word Meaning, Print Awareness, Phonological Awareness, Letters

and Sounds, Word Analysis.

6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).

Reliability coefficient ranges 0.66 to 0.90 across grade levels and subsets; validity proven

across contexts of content, criterion-related, and construct; validity supported that instrument

tested its intended purpose. Norm referenced standardization samples (N = 1,395 students in

Grades K-12 for Form A, and N = 1,440 students in Grades K-12 for Form B) with

standardization sample for Form A selected to be demographically representative of gender,

race/ethnicity, and geographic region.

7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures.

Administrators are provided with an on-line Teaching Trial Strategies (TTS) for students.

Detailed directions for test administration and scoring are provided in the teacher's manual. In

addition, test administrators are provided with a response record with directions for

administration, which includes a script for administering the test as well as recording and

scoring materials. Benchmarks for mastery are provided for each test and their component

parts. In addition, each lesson has explicit directions and a list of needed materials. All

teaching components also contain a student record form to record student responses.

javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~ZC%20%22DAR-2%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Roswell%2C%20Florence%20G.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Chall%2C%20Jeanne%20S.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Curtis%2C%20Mary%20E.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Curtis%2C%20Mary%20E.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~AR%20%22Kearns%2C%20Gail%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. Administration of the battery is untimed but takes approximately 40 minutes. Although

specific instructions are provided for adequate test administration, the time lapse necessary

between the pre- and post-assessments is not provided,

9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.

Examiner provided with DAR ScoringPro software system with detailed instructions for

scoring provided in the teacher’s manual, and response record containing a detailed script for

recording and scoring. The TTS website contains instructions for accessing the appropriate

test for individual students. Teachers are given directions for scoring as well as guidelines for

interpreting and using the results.

10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency None indicated. However, the instrument has the ability to separate known groups of children

that might be expected to have different levels of reading proficiency.

11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.

None indicated; not differentiated for any specific group. However, administered untimed to

meet the needs of students with disabilities and special needs.

12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.

None indicated; no adaptations indicated for any specific group.

13. Describe the strengths of the instrument. Strengths include the positive internal consistency estimates that were obtained and the

criterion-related validity as demonstrated through the ability of the test to separate known

groups of children that might be expected to have different levels of reading proficiency.

14. State any weaknesses of the instrument. (1) difficult to locate on-line resources with no specific Web address indicated in the resources

provided; (2) technical manual unclear on whether reported psychometrics are based on the 2nd

edition or an earlier version; (3) limited reliability provided for some of the DAR tests; and

(4) does not contain a factor analysis to provide a better understanding of the instrument’s

internal structure; (5) ESL typically score lower that the control group.

15. Additional comments, information, and observations: Not appropriate for English as a Second Language (ESL) students; not true assessment of their

oral or cognitive abilities in contexts of their own spoken language.

Analysis of GORT-5

Summary of Assessment

GORT-5 is a reading assessment used to identify students with reading difficulty,

diagnose reading disabilities, determine strengths and weaknesses, and evaluate and document

students’ progress in reading. The test focuses on reading comprehension and oral fluency.

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment

The strengths of GORT-5 are in its validity and reliability. The assessment has strong

prediction evidence and construct-related evidence of validity across cultural contexts; the

assessment standardization for development of norms were designed and implemented to assure

representation across regions of the country, gender, and race. The assessment is highly reliable

with reliability coefficients for all age intervals exceeding 0.9. Administration, scoring, and

interpretation of the assessment is done so by trained professional examiners (i.e. teachers,

specialists, psychologist, diagnosticians).

While the instrument is an excellent diagnostic tool for making classification and

instructional decisions, evaluating student progress or intervention effectiveness, and conducting

research, it does not measure phonemic awareness or basic word recall, the underlying constructs

of reading. GORT-5 normative group was constructed to represent U.S. population across the

variables of geographic region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’ education, household income,

and exceptionalities. However, GORT-5 does not have adaptations for students with special

needs or disabilities and there is no indication how they are represented in the norm group.

Justification and Use of the Assessment

Aforementioned, professional educators, psychologists, and diagnosticians can readily

depend on the results and interpretation of data from GORT-5 as a valid diagnostic tool for

identifying students with reading deficiencies, diagnosing reading disabilities, determining

strengths and weaknesses, and evaluating students’ progress in reading.

Name of Instrument GORT-5

Author(s) of Instrument J. Lee Wiederholt and Brian R. Bryant

Date of Publication 2012

Publisher PRO-ED

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) Reading

2. Describe the age range. Ages 6-23

3. State the purpose of the instrument. 'Identify students with reading difficulty, diagnose reading disabilities, determine strengths

and weaknesses, and evaluate students’ progress in reading.

4. Describe the examiner qualifications. Qualified examiners: teachers, school psychologists, and diagnosticians

5. Describe the available scores. Oral Reading Index (Fluency [Rate, Accuracy, Total], Reading Comprehension

6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).

Validity: Prediction evidence and construct-related evidence of validity across cultural

contexts; Reliability: Reliability coefficient for all age intervals exceeded 0.9. Norms:

Assessment Standardization: development of norms designed and implemented to assure

standardization of administration and scoring and sample selection to obtain representation

across regions of the country, gender, and race.

7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures.

Administrator’s/Examiner’s manual includes information about how to administer and score

the test, interpretation of scores, and technical characteristics (norms, reliability, and validity).

A consumable examiner’s record booklet (for Form A or Form B), the examiner records

student time and miscues and asks and records responses to comprehension questions.

8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. [20-30] minutes; Test has two parallel forms (A and B) each with 16 separate stories with five

comprehension questions following each story. Typically administered in 15-45 minutes

9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. Examiner manual includes information on scoring and interpretation of test score (Rate score

derived from the amount of time in seconds taken by a student to read a story aloud; accuracy

score derived from number of words student pronounces correctly when reading the passage.

fluency score determined by combining student’s Rate and Accuracy scores; comprehension

score determined by number of questions about the stories that the student answers correctly).

The Oral Reading Index (ORI) is a composite score formed by combining students’ Fluency

and Comprehension scaled scores.

10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency

None indicated; test designed to determine students with reading disabilities and evaluate

student progress.

11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.

Normative group was matched to the U.S. population across the variables of geographic

region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’ education, household income, and exceptionalities.

Test designed to determine students with reading disabilities and to evaluate student progress.

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.

None indicated.

13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.

The instrument is an excellent diagnostic tool for making classification and instructional

decisions, evaluating student progress or intervention effectiveness, and conducting research to

determine the range of options using scaled scores as well as miscue analyses of oral reading.

14. State any weaknesses of the instrument. Does not measure any underlying constructs of reading (e.g., phonemic awareness, basic word

recall).

15. Additional comments, information, and observations: Administrators and users should not conduct the secondary analysis scoring (i.e., prosody

ratings and miscue analyses) if they have not received sufficient training.

Analysis of WIAT-III

Summary of Assessment

WIAT-III is an achievement assessment for primary and secondary students ages 4-0 through 19-

11 (Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade). The individually administered comprehensive was

designed to measure the achievement levels of children in the areas of listening, speaking,

reading, writing and mathematics; it also advises the adult norms for ages 20 through 50. The

constructs of WIAT-III identify academic strengths and weaknesses, informs decision making

pertaining to eligibility of services, and devises recommendations for instruction and

intervention.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment

Validity studies are consistent with professional practice and provide evidence for its

interpretations and uses. The developed norms norm samples were constructed to be nationally

representative of the U.S. population for each grade and age level, and total with students added

from special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairment,

intellectual disability, and developmental delay). Correlation studies with previous editions and

similar achievement tests (i.e. WPPSI-III, WISC-IV, WAIS-IV, WNV, and DAS-I) provide

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

strong convergent evidence for interpretation of the subtests and composites; the assessment is

reliable for assessing the aforementioned objectives.

Although the WIAT-III is well constructed assessment for measuring the achievement of

children in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics, has representative norms, and

provides strong evidence of reliability and validity, it does not provide reliability and validity

evidence for the suggested use of the instrument to design instructional objectives and plan

interventions.

Justification and Use of the Assessment

The WIAT-III, being administered by experienced examiners and scored by experienced

and professional educators and diagnosticians, is able to provide a comprehensive and reliable

assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses in the aforementioned areas and inform

instructional interventions for diverse student populations (e.g. different age group and cognitive

levels, specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairment, intellectual disability, and

developmental delays, etc.).

Name of Instrument WIAT-III.

Author(s) of Instrument Pearson

Date of Publication 2009

Publisher Pearson

1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) Achievement: listening, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics

2. Describe the age range. Ages 4-0 to 19-11: Pre-K to 2nd Grade

3. State the purpose of the instrument.

To measure the achievement of students' in prekindergarten through Grade 12 in the areas of

listening, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics.

4. Describe the examiner qualifications. Level B: Experienced examiner/teacher

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

5. Describe the available scores. The scores available include: Listening Comprehension, Early Reading Skills, Reading

Comprehension, Alphabet Writing Fluency, Sentence Composition, Word Reading, Essay

Composition, Pseudoword Decoding, Oral Reading and Oral Expression, Fluency, Spelling,

Math Problem Solving, Numerical Operations, Math Fluency (Addition, Subtraction,

Multiplication), 8 composite scores (Oral Language, Total Reading, Basic Reading, Reading

Comprehension and Fluency, Written Expression, Mathematics, Math Fluency, Total

Achievement).

6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).

Three primary validity studies report content evidence, convergent evidence, and special group

studies; the studies are consistent with professional practice and provide validity evidence for

its interpretations and uses. The reliability coefficients for all subsets except Alphabet Writing

Fluency (AWF) are 0.8 and higher for the Fall sample and slightly lower for the Spring

sample; AWF had Fall sample of 0.69. The composite reliability is greater than 0.9 and

provides reliability evidence. Norms were developed with 2,775 students in Grades PK-12

with separate norms reported for Fall (N = 1,400) and Spring (N = 1,375); norm samples

constructed to be nationally representative of the U.S. population for each grade and age level,

and total with students added from special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech or

language impairment, intellectual disability, and developmental delay).

7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures.

Q-global kit including examiner's manual, technical manual CD, stimulus book,

scoring workbook, oral reading fluency book, word card, pseudo word card, audio CD’

materials provide an experienced examiner with a solid basis for administering this

assessment.

8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. Administration time varies depending on the grade level of the student and the number of

subtests administered.; average administration time ranges from 1 minute to 17 minutes.

Average scoring time: about 40 minutes.

9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. Standardized scoring procedures are provided; scoring can be completed manually or with the

Scoring Assistant CD. Several scores are available for each subtest: standard scores, percentile

ranks, grade and age equivalents, normal curve equivalents, and stanines, and growth scale

values.

10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency None indicated.

11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.

Instrument appropriate for use with children who have disabilities.

12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.

Students within special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech or language

impairment, intellectual disability, and developmental delay) added to representative norm.

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

13. Describe the strengths of the instrument. Assessment does provide a comprehensive assessment of children's strengths and weaknesses

in reading and language and informs instructional interventions for a wide range of students.

The assessment instructions are clearly laid out in the examiner’s manual, it is easy to

administer, and the clearly written examiner’s manual provides the examiner with easy to use

tables for scoring,

14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.

Does not provide reliability and validity evidence for the suggested use of the instrument to

design instructional objectives and plan interventions. Indication of

15. Additional comments, information, and observations: Click or tap here to enter text.

Analysis of Test of Early Reading Ability—Fourth Edition (TERA-IV)

Summary of Assessment

TERA-4 is still under review. The previous TERA assessment (TERA-3) ascertains that

the purpose of the assessment is to identify children who demonstrate reading development

significantly below their peers that may require interventions, to identify children’s individual

strengths and weaknesses, to provide documentation of children’s progress as a result of the

implemented intervention program, to serve as a measure of research for studying literacy

development in young children, and to be used in conjunction with other assessment techniques.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment

Strengths of TERA-4 lie in its ease of administration, its use of tables, and scoring. It is

able to assess the aforementioned objectives, identify children’s strengths and weaknesses, and

be used as a measure of research. TERA is an assessment quick tool with individual nonclinical

administration, is able to supplement other formal and informal assessments for reading

development. and can screen for specific areas of strength and weaknesses in individual children.

Weaknesses may lie in the usage of non-clinical examiners to administer and score the

assessment. Experienced examiners with well-developed skills in administering, scoring, and

interpretation can be useful in providing data and interpretations to educators to provide students

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

displaying weaknesses with early interventions. The instrument assesses conventions

(understanding the arbitrary conventions of reading and writing in English) and may be

inappropriate for students with limited English proficiency (i.e. ESL students).

Justification and Use of the Assessment

TERA has been in development since 1981, and revisions have been in accordance with

reviewers’ recommendations to increase the assessments validity and reliability. The authors,

taking reviewers recommendations into account, collected new normative data, addressed

appropriate demographic representation and conducted extensive reliability and validity studies,

and added them as per recommendations. The instrument is a reliable and valid source for

assessing individual children’s mastery of early reading skills and is useful in identifying the

scope and depth of reading development deficiencies.

DATA COLLECTION FOR ASSESSMENT EVALUATIONS

Name of Instrument Test of Early Reading Ability--Fourth Edition (TERA-4)

Author(s) of Instrument D. Kim Reid, Wayne P. Hresko, Donald D. Hammill

Date of Publication 2018

Publisher Pro-Ed

4. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)

Reading

5. Describe the age range. Ages 3-6 to 8-6.

6. State the purpose of the instrument. Earlier versions were designed to assess children’s mastery of early developing reading skills,

help identify children who have significant problems in reading development, and to

determine the degree of their problems.

7. Describe the examiner qualifications. Nonclinical staff can administer. However, authors strongly recommend that the examiner

have formal training in assessment with a basic understanding of testing statistics and general

procedures regarding test administration, scoring, and interpretation.

8. Describe the available scores. Alphabet, Conventions, Meaning

9. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

Reviews for TERA-4 are pending. The previous edition (TERA-3): Norm sample well

matched to the general school-age population (gender, race, ethnicity, SES, disability, and

urban/rural) and representative of regions across the United States. Reliability coefficient

ranged from 0.8 to 0.91 or higher across all subtests and age groups. Reliability, validity, and

norm-referenced measures instill confidence that the test scores can be considered highly

reliable and valid.

10. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures.

The TERA-4 offers a quick tool, with easy one-to-one nonclinical administration, to

supplement other formal and informal assessments of development reading and can screen for

specific areas of strength and weaknesses in individual children. TERA provides

administrators with examiners’ manuals, record booklets (profile sheet with graphic

comparison across the three subtests, a graph to compare the Reading Quotient with other

comparable measures that might have been administered to the child). The examiner record

booklet has space for interpretation, comments, and diagnostic implications; the examiner can

note the testing conditions and the degree of validity under the recorded conditions.

11. State the approximate administration and scoring time. Individual administration; 30-45 minutes

12. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. The TERA-4 offers a quick tool, with easy one-to-one nonclinical administration and on-line

scoring available upon completion of assessment.

13. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency None indicated; test norm referenced across regions of the United States (i.e. gender, race,

ethnicity, SES, disability, and urban/rural). The instrument assesses conventions

(understanding the arbitrary conventions of reading and writing in English) and may be

inappropriate for students with limited English proficiency (i.e. ESL students).

14. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.

None indicated;

15. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.

None indicated

16. Describe the strengths of the instrument. Strengths of TERA-4 lie in its ease of administration, its use of tables, and scoring. It is able

to assess the aforementioned objectives, identify children’s strengths and weaknesses, and be

used as a measure of research. TERA is an assessment quick tool

17. State any weaknesses of the instrument.

Weaknesses may lie in the usage of non-clinical examiners to administer and score the

assessment.

18. Additional comments, information, and observations: Instrument is under review. Used review of TERA-3 to analyze the TERA-4 assessment.

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1

References

Pearson. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test--Third Edition. Retrieved from

https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3194&site=ehost-

live&scope=site

Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2018). Test of Early Reading Ability--Fourth

Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.11173&site=ehost-

live&scope=site

Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1981). Test of Early Reading Ability, Third

Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2309&site=ehost-

live&scope=site

Roswell, F. G., Chall, J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns, G. (2006). Diagnostic Assessments of

Reading™, Second Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3028&site=ehost-

live&scope=site

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests–Fifth Edition. Retrieved

from https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.6455&site=ehost-

live&scope=site