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

Abstract

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.

The validity of reading comprehension rate: Reading speed, comprehension, and comprehension rates

“…For example, researchers may want to determine how much of the concurrent validity of other brief reading rate measures, such as cloze and maze (see Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982;Jenkins & Jewell, 1993;Parker et al, 1992) is accounted for by the measure of reading speed embedded within these other rate measures.…”

Reading assessment methods for middle‐school students: An investigation of reading comprehension rate and Maze accurate response rate

“…There are also concerns with the face validity of WCPM as the measure does not appear to assess reading comprehension (Parker, Hasbrouck, & Tindal, 1992), even though WCPM correlates strongly with standardized measures of reading achievement (Potter & Wamre, 1990;Skinner et al, 2002). A concern has also arisen regarding the detection of comprehension deficits in students who can read fluently but do not comprehend what they read, as WCPM would not detect this specific reading skills deficit (Marston, 1989).…”

Comparing Two CBM Maze Selection Tools: Considering Scoring and Interpretive Metrics for Universal Screening

“…Third, while CBM-R is used commonly as a measure of reading comprehension there are cautions; CBM-R is not a direct measure of reading comprehension, but it correlates strongly with standardized measures of reading comprehension (Potter & Wamre, 1990;Skinner, Needenriep, Bradley-Klug, & Ziemann, 2002). However, concerns with the face validity of CBM-R for measuring reading comprehension (Parker, Hasbrouck, & Tindal, 1992;Wayman, Wallace, Wiley, Tichà, & Espin, 2007) suggest more direct measures of reading comprehension (e.g., maze selection) may be necessary.…”

“…The second distractor is a "near distractor" that is grammatically correct, but does not relate to the content of the passage. As such, the accuracy of a student's response is greatly influenced by the quality of the distractors (Parker et al, 1992). Due to these measurement issues, other metrics of scoring than correct restorations for maze selection have been explored.…”