Alison Madelaine

Identifying low‐progress readers: Comparing teacher judgment with a curriculum‐based measurement procedure

Identifying low‐progress readers easily and quickly is an essential prerequisite for effective literacy intervention in schools. In this study, teacher judgment of reading performance is compared with a curriculum‐based measurement procedure. This study involved 33 teachers and their Year 3 to Year 5 classes. Twelve students were randomly selected from each class and their teachers were asked to rank them based on their judgments of student reading performance. All students were also assessed on a Passage Reading Test (PRT) based on the principles of curriculum‐based measurement. The obtained oral reading fluency measures for the students were ranked for each class and compared with teacher judgment rankings. The results indicated that only one‐half of the teachers identified the same poorest reader as did the curriculum‐based PRT. Moreover, only 15% of the teachers identified the same 3 lowest performing readers as the PRT. These findings suggest that over‐reliance on teacher judgment for identifying low‐progress readers may be misplaced and that curriculum‐based PRTs may provide a more objective and quick alternative procedure.

Curriculum-based Measurement of Reading: A critical review

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) represents an alternative to both standardised and teacher made reading tests. Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), a curriculumbased measure of reading, is presented as an accurate indicator of both general reading ability and reading comprehension, and as a means of monitoring reading progress towards functional literacy. The relevant literature relating to curriculum-based measurement of reading is critically reviewed, with particular reference to research supporting the use of Passage Reading Tests (PRTs) to measure ORF.

Curriculum‐based measurement of reading: recent advances

A significant amount of literature has been published on curriculum‐based measurement (CBM) in the last decade. Much of the conceptual work on CBM was done in the 1980s and early 1990s. This review concentrates on the large body of research published within the last 10 years on CBM of reading, including further research demonstrating its technical characteristics (particularly those of oral reading fluency), studies on the establishment of norms, more evidence for the effectiveness of CBM of reading for screening, referral and classification, issues related to implementation, and generalisation to other groups and settings.

What Recent Reviews Tell Us About the Efficacy of Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers in the Early Years of Schooling

An analysis of large and influential published reviews of research pertaining to the reading acquisition of young struggling readers in the early years of schooling was undertaken. The reviews were selected on the basis that they either had been commissioned by federal governments or had been conducted by reputable research institutions and had been released in the past 10 years. A search of published literature pertaining to the topic found three federal reviews (from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia), a What Works Clearinghouse Report into beginning reading programmes, a review of reading interventions by Slavin et al. and a synthesis of meta-analyses by Hattie. Analysis of these reviews indicated that there are key commonalities in findings about how to teach reading to young students. Reviews of interventions revealed some flaws and therefore provide limited information useful to programme implementation and development for young struggling readers.

Components of effective early reading interventions for young struggling readers

Although the importance of intervening to assist young struggling readers is widely accepted and many interventions have been developed to meet this need, research has not yet established that there is an effective and low-cost option for schools. Reviews of research into beginning reading provide guidance about what needs to be included in an intervention for young struggling readers but there is less available information about how to organise and implement an intervention. Recent research into the variables influencing interventions that have been used with young students provides some useful information that can be used to adapt existing programs or design and develop new ones. Ten desirable features of interventions suitable for young students who are beginning to struggle in reading after a year of schooling are identified.

Further progress towards a standardised curriculum-based measure of reading : calibrating a new passage reading test against the New South Wales basic skills test

Results are presented from a pilot study and a larger scale study aligning a curriculum-based passage reading test, the Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages (WARP), with the literacy components of the New South Wales Basic Skills Test (BST). A strong relationship between the WARP and BST Literacy is demonstrated, particularly for Year Three students. Representative (approximate) norms for students in Years One to Five on the WARP are reported, based on the results from a school with a BST literacy profile that is very similar to that for the state of New South Wales as a whole.

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

Abstract Findings on the development of a curriculum‐based passage reading test using five standardised passages (the WARP) are provided, based on a validity study involving a sample of 50 primary school students. Performance on the five passages was compared with performance on two standardised tests of reading and a phonic word attack skills test, demonstrating good criterion validity with reading accuracy (0.83‐0.87), reading comprehension (0.67‐0.72) and word attack skills (0.75‐0.78). Intercorrelations between the five passages were shown to be very high (0.94‐0.96), demonstrating excellent alternate forms reliability. The WARP thereby demonstrates promise as a quick, cost‐effective measure of reading performance with the additional benefit of allowing regular tracking of performance over time.

The Devil is in the Detail Regarding the Efficacy of Reading Recovery: A rejoinder to Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs, and Scull

This rejoinder provides comment on issues raised by Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs and Scull (2009) in their article about evidence‐based practice and Reading Recovery (RR), written in response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007). Particular attention is paid to the processes and findings of the What Works Clearinghouse evaluation of RR. The suggestion that this evaluation is flawed casts doubt about some of its findings. The authors maintain their earlier stance that RR is effective for many students but do not accept that there is evidence that initial gains are sustained through the primary grades, that RR is an efficient tier two intervention in a response to intervention approach and that significant cost benefits have been demonstrated in education systems. It is concluded that research into alternative interventions that could be implemented at lower cost is warranted.

A Curriculum-based Passage Reading Test for Monitoring the Performance of Low-Progress Readers: The Development of the WARP.

Results are presented from two studies involving 190 primary and high school (Year 7) students and 146 older low-progress readers in the late primary years. These studies contribute towards the development of five 200 word standardised passages which may be employed interchangeably to monitor the performance of low-progress readers towards achieving functional literacy. The passages are shown to possess both high parallel form reliability (0.94 to 0.96) and internal consistency (0.97 to 0.99), and also good criterion validity (0.78 to 0.80) with reading accuracy. Appropriate growth in performance over the primary years is also demonstrated. These findings suggest that an extrapolated model of curriculum-based measurement (CBM), which incorporates elements of more traditional reading assessments, would overcome some of the problems associated with CBM.

Gender Ratios for Reading Disability: Are There Really More Boys than Girls Who Are Low-Progress Readers?.

Extensive research over the past decade has indicated that there are more boys than girls who are struggling readers, but the degree to which there are more boys remains a point of contention. The focus of this article is to review the various definitions of reading disability, to examine how these different definitions translate into different methods of identifying reading disability and to determine the effects on observed gender ratios for reading disability. The most frequently used methods of identifying reading disability are discrepancy formulae, Response-To-Intervention (RTI) and low achievement methods. Gender ratios clearly fluctuate among, and even within, these methods. Inconsistencies in reported gender ratios of reading disability are a result of inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of reading disability, sampling issues and the overall distributions of reading scores for boys and girls. Future research might consider reporting gender ratios for reading disability based on consistent measures of reading performance in population samples, using consistent cut off points, over a significant period of time.