Different Approaches to Equating Oral Reading Fluency Passages

Santi, Kristi L.; Barr, Christopher D.; Khalaf, Shiva; Francis, D.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2803-3_9

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…LVE was used to adjust for the prompt effects. LVE first uses measurement invariance within a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) framework (Santi et al, 2015). A sample model illustrating this process is available in Figure 1 of the supplementary online materials.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Syntheses of CBM-WE research reported moderate to high ( r = .55–.96) alternate form reliability for CIWS (McMaster & Espin, 2007). However, prompts have unmeasured systematic error that is not captured by alternative form reliability indices (Santi, Barr, Khalaf, & Francis, 2015). Although high alternative form reliability indices ensure that rank order is appropriately maintained when discriminating between higher and lower performers, the alternate form reliability value does not hold for the measurement of differences in individual student growth across time and different passages (Santi et al, 2015).…”

Section: Writing In Response To Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, prompts have unmeasured systematic error that is not captured by alternative form reliability indices (Santi, Barr, Khalaf, & Francis, 2015). Although high alternative form reliability indices ensure that rank order is appropriately maintained when discriminating between higher and lower performers, the alternate form reliability value does not hold for the measurement of differences in individual student growth across time and different passages (Santi et al, 2015). In an effort to account for individual differences in student growth for CBM in reading, Santi and colleagues recommend two steps that we followed in this project: (a) sampling from a range of difficulty within the context of grade-level expectations and (b) remove the passage-specific error through linear latent variable equating (LVE).…”

Section: Writing In Response To Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the passage-based CBM-WE task in this study, we used a variety of text complexity metrics (Lexile ® , Flesch-Kincaid, and Coh-Metrix) to choose a range of passages appropriate for each grade level. Although some researchers have suggested holding text complexity constant across passages, empirical studies show that using text complexity to control for passage difficulty was demonstrated to be less effective in reducing construct-irrelevant variance than methods that evaluate students’ actual performance in response to different passages (Christ & Ardoin, 2009; Francis et al, 2008; Santi et al, 2015). Therefore, in the current study, we will evaluate the amount of variance due to prompt using a counterbalanced design and use LVE on the students’ responses.…”

Section: Writing In Response To Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Expanding Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression for Middle School

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides significant advances in the understanding and utility of writing assessment for progress monitoring writing instruction. We explored the validity of a new writing tool that asks students in Grades 3 through 8 to read and respond to informational passages. The written response is then scored for writing fluency. Results indicated that students’ writing fluency facilitated their writing quality and predicted 70% to 95% of the variance in writing achievement among students in middle school and 31% of the variance in Grade 3. To further validate the use of passages in progress monitoring, we used a rigorous method (latent variable equating) to remove the measurement error due to different passages. Considerations for instructional decisions based on writing assessment, as well as limitations of the study, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Writing In Response To Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Writing In Response To Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Writing In Response To Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Expanding Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression for Middle School

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Horizontal equating places scores from multiple texts or test forms on a single metric, enabling their interchangeable use, while vertical linking aligns the metrics from test forms with distinct difficulty levels, such as forms for different grade levels, producing comparable score scales over time (Kolen & Brennan, 2014;Santi et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing oral reading fluency within and across grade levels: Development of equated test forms

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deficits in oral reading fluency (ORF) impair reading comprehension and tend to persevere throughout schooling. Therefore, the assessment and monitoring of the students' performance in ORF across time should be routinely performed to guide the instruction and intervention. The goal of this work was to develop and validate a test of ORF for Portuguese students from grades 1 to 6 (TAF -Teste de Avaliação da Fluência) that includes specific test forms for each grade level with equated scores that allow comparison across multiple assessment points. In study 1 (N = 1166), the chained equipercentile equating method was performed to equate the test forms' scores horizontally and vertically. The tests of differences performed using the equated scores indicated that they were similar within the same grade level but increased significantly across grade levels.In study 2 (N = 549), reliability and validity evidence for the test forms was collected. Test-retest correlations were higher than .90, suggesting a high stability of the scores. Significant correlations between the TAF scores and the ones obtained in other reading tests, teachers' judgments, and school outcomes, were obtained, thus providing evidence of validity for the developed test forms. This instrument allows not only interindividual comparisons but also the assessment of intra-individual changes in ORF across time or as a result of intervention programs, while avoiding learning effects that arise when the same measure is administered multiple times.

show abstract