Evaluating a history text: A comparison of cloze and maze procedures

Bean, Thomas W.; Brandt, Patti

doi:10.1080/19388078109557632

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were obtained when a Maze test from a history text was used to judge the text's instructional suitability for 40 college students (Bean & Brandt, 1981). The Maze unrealistically estimated that the text was at or below 98% of the students' reading levels.…”

Section: Maze Scores As Placement Indicatorssupporting

confidence: 58%

“…The first priority for Maze research is to establish alternate forms reliability with a format that is efficient and addresses content/construct validity. Various forms of the Maze, especially those with unchallenging distractors, have been consistently unsuccessful in identifying instructional and other reading levels (Bean & Brandt, 1981;Pedigo and DeSanti, 1986;Pikulski & Pikulski, 1977); that is, they have not met criteria set by Guthrie et al (1974). In one sense, this is a trivial problem, which can be solved by a simple additive transformation of the raw score.…”

Section: Text Selection: Long Enough For Internal Coherence But Shormentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The "guessing floor" is the bane of selection-response testing with low achievers. About half of all studies followed Guthrie's (1973) recommendation for two distractors, one of the same part of speech and a second that is inappropriate semantically and syntactically (e.g., Bean 8c Brandt, 1981;Bradley et al, 1978;Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Ferguson, 1990;Jenkins & Jewell, 1990;Pikulski 8c Pikulski, 1977). Fewer studies used three distractors, following the lead of Guthrie's contemporary, Cranney (1972-73) (Hinofotis 8c Snow, 1977;Kaczmarek, 1980;Paige, 1977).…”

Section: Number Of Distractorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Maze as a Classroom-Based Reading Measure: Construction Methods, Reliability, and Validity

Parker

Hasbrouck²,

Tindal³

1992

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty years of research on the Maze is reviewed to help ascertain the potential usefulness of this classroom-based reading measure for students with learning disabilities. Alternative methods of construction, administration, and scoring are examined. We examined evidence for three types of reliability: test-retest, alternate forms, and internal consistency. In addition, we scrutinized the use of Maze scores for instructional-level text placement. Finally, we summarized evidence on three types of validity criteria: standardized tests, teacher judgment, and reading group placement. The extant research on various Maze formats is supportive; however, the most common version of the Maze (Guthrie, 1973) needs to be revised to obtain minimum construct validity. Additional research is urgently needed on the Maze's alternate forms reliability and its usefulness in making instructional decisions.

show abstract

Section: Maze Scores As Placement Indicatorssupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Text Selection: Long Enough For Internal Coherence But Shormentioning

confidence: 96%