Additional data on the reliability and validity of photographic eye-movement records.

Abstract

1. Photographic eye-movement records of reading for elementary school pupils are approximately as reliable as the best achievement and intelligence tests available. These results coincide with those derived from college students.2. The inter-relationships of the eye-movement records show that the number of regressions and the number of fixations are measures of the same ability whereas the average duration of fixations is not highly related to either of the other measures.3. While the validity of photographic eye-movement records for elementary school pupils as determined by various reading and intelligence tests is somewhat higher than for college students, it is not sufficiently so as a measure of rate or comprehension in reading to be regarded as highly satisfactory for diagnostic purposes.

Reliability and Validity of Eye Movement Measures of Children's Reading

“…To date, only seven publications directly evaluating the utility of EMs as measures of reading have been published (see Table ), all of which were published in the 1930s (Eurich, , ; Futch, ; Litterer, ; Tinker, , ; Tinker & Frandsen, ). In general, these studies investigated the consistency of EMs during short samples of reading and the validity of EM records using participants’ reading speed and comprehension performance as criteria.…”

“…Reported reliability coefficients (corrected for the full length of reading material, when applicable) were generally high, ranging from .78 to .92 (Litterer, ), from .73 to .91 (Eurich, ), from .86 to .91 (Eurich, ), from .55 to .93 (Tinker & Frandsen, ), and from .80 to .94 (Futch, ). Taken together, these results suggested that EM measures captured reading behavior in a consistent manner throughout and across different types of reading material.…”

“…Taken together, these results suggested that EM measures captured reading behavior in a consistent manner throughout and across different types of reading material. Thus, researchers deemed EM measures adequately reliable for making relative comparisons based on collected data (Tinker, ) and at least as reliable as well‐regarded standardized tests (Eurich, ).…”

“…In contrast, studies revealed limited criterion‐related validity, as reflected by correlations between EM data and participants’ performance on assessments of reading speed, vocabulary, paragraph reading, comprehension, and broad reading achievement. Reported validity coefficients indicated only moderate to fair relations between EMs and tested reading skills, ranging from −.316 to −.617 (Litterer, ), from −.02 to −.25 (Eurich, ), from −.18 to −.55 (Eurich, ), .01 to −.34 (Futch, ), and .01 to −.66 (Tinker, ). Results suggested that EM measures lacked sufficient validity to function satisfactorily as diagnostic measures of reading rate or comprehension (Eurich, ).…”

“…Reported validity coefficients indicated only moderate to fair relations between EMs and tested reading skills, ranging from −.316 to −.617 (Litterer, ), from −.02 to −.25 (Eurich, ), from −.18 to −.55 (Eurich, ), .01 to −.34 (Futch, ), and .01 to −.66 (Tinker, ). Results suggested that EM measures lacked sufficient validity to function satisfactorily as diagnostic measures of reading rate or comprehension (Eurich, ). That is, EM measures appeared to capture some aspect of reading performance distinct from rate or comprehension as measured by standardized tests (Eurich, ).…”