Meeting Expectations? An Empirical Investigation of a Standards-Based Assessment of Reading Comprehension

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine the relationship between performance on a standards-based assessment of reading comprehension in fourth grade and performance on a diagnostic battery of component skills of reading for a cohort of children who were followed from kindergarten through fourth grade. The findings demonstrate that the relationship between performance on component skills of reading and the proficiency classifications from the standards-based assessment is generally weak. They also demonstrate that the relationship between the proficiency classifications and a norm-referenced diagnostic measure of reading comprehension is only moderate. Furthermore, the study shows that the broad proficiency-level classifications of the standards-based assessment mask significant heterogeneity in children’s performance on some of the component skills assessed, both within and across proficiency classifications. In turn, the ability of the standards-based assessment results to inform instructional interventions is low. The implications of these findings for instructional planning within standards-based accountability systems are discussed.

“I'm Not Stupid”: How Assessment Drives (In)Appropriate Reading Instruction

“…If instructional decisions for young adolescent readers are made based on TCAP results, then are these decisions made on the assumption that all students who score below proficient are missing the same basic skills? Research on the instruction offered to struggling elementary school readers demonstrates that this is often the case, and that ensuing instruction promotes skills required for emergent readers (Buly & Valencia, 2002;Pressley & Allington, 1999;Rupp & Lesaux, 2006). Linn (2000) asserted that using scores from standardized assessments in this way has "undesirable effects on teaching and learning because they [lead] to a narrowing of the curriculum and an overemphasis on basic skills" (p. 8).…”

Handbook of reading disability research

“…They suggested a layer approach to using profi les in which students would be assessed fi rst on the main core components followed by more diagnostic assessment for students identifi ed at risk. Rupp and Lesaux (2006) used an approach similar to Riddle Buly and Valencia (2002) to examine the relation between fourth-grade students' categorical performance on a standards-based comprehension test and their performance on a diagnostic battery of reading skills. They assessed a somewhat different set of subskills than Riddle Buly and Valencia that factored into two components: (a) word-level skills (untimed and speeded tests of real and pseudowords, spelling); and (b) working memory and language (working memory for numbers and words, pseudoword spelling, oral cloze, auditory analysis).…”

“…In addition, a more in-depth analysis of the children in the below expectations category revealed a subgroup whose low performance could not be accounted for by either word-level skills or linguistic/cognitive skills measured in the study. Overall, Rupp and Lesaux (2006) concluded that classifi cation categories on standards-based tests do not adequately refl ect the diagnostic profi les of students that are needed to provide instruction. Information from multiple measures, diagnostic classroom assessments, and measures of other reading components need to be considered as instructional interventions are planned.…”

School Evaluation

“…This is particularly important for students who perform "below expectations", and for whom it is important to diagnose the source of learning difficulties. For example, Rupp and Lesaux (2006) found that it was virtually impossible to disentangle the cause of reading difficulties based on the single global score or classification of standards-based assessments. Thus before teachers are able to develop remedial plans, lower-performing students may require additional diagnostic testing.…”