Author ORCID Identifier

Poch - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1316-0228

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

7-11-2016

Publication Title

Reading & Writing Quarterly

Volume

33

Issue

2

First Page

141

Last Page

154

Abstract

The present study examined the technical adequacy of maze-selection tasks constructed in 2 different ways: typical versus novel. We selected distractors for each measure systematically based on rules related to the content of the passage and the part of speech of the correct choice. Participants included 262 middle school students who were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 maze formats. Scoring of the maze included both correct and correct-minus-incorrect scores. Students completed 3 criterion-reading tests: the Scholastic Reading Inventory, the AIMSweb R-Maze, and a high-stakes state assessment (the Missouri Assessment Program). Alternate-forms reliability was similar across maze formats; however, with regard to scoring procedure, reliability coefficients were consistently higher for correct than for correct-minus-incorrect scores. Validity coefficients were also similar across format with 1 exception: The coefficients for typical maze scores were stronger when compared with the Missouri Assessment Program scores than the coefficients for novel maze scores.

Comments

— Invited to join this manuscript during my doctoral studies by contributing the introductory pages. (Poch, A.L.)

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Reading and Writing Quarterly on [July 11, 2016], available online:

Download

Share

COinS