Dealing with the Reading Needs of the Learning Disabled Child

Reading Assessment and Instructional Practices in Special Education

“…Research indicates that use of formal, standardized assessments is not the recommended method of assessing an individual's reading performance for instructional purposes (Jenkins & Pany, 1978;Rosner et al, 1981). Yet 67% of teachers surveyed reported using formal individual achievement tests (e.g., WJ-R, PIAT,R, and WIAT-R) to assess reading, and this type of assessment was given the seventh-highest ranking of the 24 procedures rated by teachers.…”

“…Recommended assessment practices for instructional decision-making in special education programs include CBM (Deno, 1985;Deno et al, 1982;Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988;Shinn, Knutson, Good, Tilly, & Collins, 1992) and miscue analysis (Goodman, 1974;Goodman & Goodman, 1977;Parker , Hasbrouck, & Tindal, 1992). A previous study indicated the use of standardized assessment was considered to be an important component in measuring student progress (Rosner, Abrams, Daniels, & Schiffman, 1981); however, research has provided alternatives that are being encouraged at the state level in some midwestem states (Schendel, & Binder-Reschley, 1989).…”

“…Recommended Reading Assessment Practices A variety of reading assessment practices are discussed in the literature with evidence supporting the effectiveness of each. Assessment practices researched students with disabilities range from standardized, norm-referenced measures of reading skill (Jenkins & Pany, 1978;Rosner, et al, 1981) to more informal reading assessment measures of reading such as CBM (Deno, 1985;Deno et al, 1982;Fuchs et al, 1988;Shinn et al, 1992) and miscue analysis (Goodman, 1974;Goodman & Goodman, 1977;Parker, Hasbrouck, & Tindal, 1992).…”

“…According to a study conducted by Rosner, et al (1981), standardized, norm-referenced measures of reading skill were found to be administered at least once each year, and provided the only means of assessment used to evaluate student progress. These authors supported the use of such measures for analysis of group performance, but did not advocate them as the only measure of progress as the complexity of the reading process cannot be summarized by a single score.…”