Statistical equating with measures of oral reading fluency

Albano, Anthony D.; Rodriguez, Michael C.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.002

Cited by 23 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the results of this study, in combination with the results from other researchers' prior work (e.g., Albano & Rodriguez, 2011;Betts et al, 2009; Identity χ 2 = 193.14 (df = 219) ** **** ** M Difference χ 2 = 5.87 (df = 1), p = .015 χ 2 = 187.27 (df = 218) *** * Linear Difference χ 2 = 14.88 (df = 2), p < .001…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…In spite of strong correlations between forms and invariance across passages in terms of readability estimates, neither of these statistics takes into account absolute score differences across forms (Albano & Rodriguez, 2011). In current, common practice, there are three primary ways in which form effects are controlled.…”

Section: Current Available Methods To Address Form Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using R-CBM as an example, an appropriate equating result would allow an individual teacher to convert a raw score from one passage to a scaled score that is expressed in "common passage units," with a specific mean and standard deviation. Given the linked screening-to-progress-monitoring format that most R-CBM test developers use, it makes sense to consider various progress-monitoring passages as linked to the most representative screening passage (see Albano & Rodriguez, 2011). In this way, the equated scores from any progress-monitoring form could be used interchangeably with the criterion-referenced goals that are typically associated with the more widely studied screening measures.…”

Section: Current Available Methods To Address Form Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Form Effects on DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency Progress- Monitoring Passages

Cummings

Park

Schaper

2012

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to describe passage effects on Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-Next Edition Oral Reading Fluency (DIBELS Next ORF) progress-monitoring measures for Grades 1 through 6. Approximately 572 students per grade (total N with at least one data point = 3,092) read all three DIBELS Next winter benchmark passages in the prescribed order, and within 2 weeks read four additional progress-monitoring passages in a randomly assigned and counterbalanced order. All 20 progress-monitoring passages were read by students in Grades 1 through 4; 16 passages were read in Grade 5 and 12 passages were read in Grade 6. Results focus on the persistence of form effects in spite of a priori criteria used in passage development. The authors describe the utility of three types of equating methods (i.e., mean, linear, and equipercentile equating) in ameliorating these effects. Their conclusions focus on preferred equating methods with small samples, the impact of form effects on progress-monitoring decision making, and recommendations for future use of ORF passages for progress monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Current Available Methods To Address Form Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Available Methods To Address Form Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Form Effects on DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency Progress- Monitoring Passages

Cummings

Park

Schaper

2012

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to compare oral and silent reading rates reliably, the PRIMR DFID baseline study utilised two reading passages which had been piloted during previous studies (Piper and Mugenda 2013) and had already been equated. The equating process used simple linear equating methods (Albano and Rodriguez 2012) and means that the rates utilised in this paper are comparable across the two passages. In addition to reading rates, we analysed the reading comprehension scores associated with each reading passage.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing reading fluency in Kenya: Oral or silent assessment?

Piper¹,

Zuilkowski

2015

Int Rev Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the Education for All movement has focused more intensely on the quality of education, rather than simply provision. Many recent and current education quality interventions focus on literacy, which is the core skill required for further academic success. Despite this focus on the quality of literacy instruction in developing countries, little rigorous research has been conducted on critical issues of assessment. This analysis, which uses data from the Primary Math and Reading Initiative (PRIMR) in Kenya, aims to begin filling this gap by addressing a key assessment issue -should literacy assessments in Kenya be administered orally or silently? The authors compared second-grade students' scores on oral and silent reading tasks of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) in Kiswahili and English, and found no statistically significant differences in either language. They did, however, find oral reading rates to be more strongly related to reading comprehension scores. Oral assessment has another benefit for programme evaluators -it allows for the collection of data on student errors, and therefore the calculation of words read correctly per minute, as opposed to simply words read per minute. The authors therefore recommend that, in Kenya and in similar contexts, student reading fluency be assessed via oral rather than silent assessment.

show abstract

“…As a result, there are now calls for equating of ORF probe passages. In fact, researchers have begun to use equated ORF scores in their studies (e.g., Barth, Stuebing, Fletcher, Cirino, Francis et al, 2012; Denton, Barth, Fletcher, Wexler, Vaughn et al, 2011), but the trade-offs among various methods of equating and the costs associated with them have only begun to be investigated (Albano & Rodriguez, 2012; Christ & Ardoin, 2009; Francis et al, 2008; Griffiths, VanDerHeyden, Skokut, & Lilles, 2009). …”

Section: Form Effects and R-cbm Orfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced (Measurement) Applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading

Petscher

Cummings²,

Biancarosa³

et al. 2012

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to provide a commentary on the current state of several measurement issues pertaining to curriculum-based measures of reading (R-CBM1). We begin by providing an overview of the utility of R-CBM, followed by a presentation of five specific measurements considerations: 1) the reliability of R-CBM oral reading fluency, 2) issues pertaining to form effects, 3) the generalizability of scores from R-CBM, 4) measurement error, and 5) linearity of growth in R-CBM. We then conclude with a presentation of the purpose for this issue and broadly introduce the articles in the special issue. Because oral reading fluency is one of the most common measures of R-CBM, much of the review is focused on this particular type of assessment; however, the issues presented extend to other assessments of R-CBM.

show abstract

Statistical equating with measures of oral reading fluency

Cited by 23 publications

References 34 publications

Form Effects on DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency Progress- Monitoring Passages

Form Effects on DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency Progress- Monitoring Passages

Assessing reading fluency in Kenya: Oral or silent assessment?

Advanced (Measurement) Applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About