A COMPARISON OF FOUR METHODS OF DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 01 November 2014, At: 04:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

A COMPARISON OF FOURMETHODS OF DETERMININGINSTRUCTIONAL READINGLEVELSMichael A. Tulley a & Roger Farr ba Indiana University‐Kokomob Indiana UniversityPublished online: 10 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Michael A. Tulley & Roger Farr (1987) A COMPARISON OFFOUR METHODS OF DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS, ReadingPsychology, 8:3, 149-168, DOI: 10.1080/0270271870080302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0270271870080302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0270271870080302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0270271870080302

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A COMPARISON OF FOUR METHODSOF DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONALREADING LEVELS

MICHAEL A. TULLEY, Indiana University-Kokomo

ROGER FARR, Indiana University

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of estimates of

instructional reading level (IRL) produced by the Reading

Comprehension Test of the 1986 Metropolitan Achievement Tests

(MAT). Estimates of IRL provided by four methods were compared:

the MAT, basal reader placement tests, an informal reading inventory

derived from MAT reading comprehension test passages, and

classroom teachers' judgments.

Subjects tested were grade 2 (n=100), 4 (n=98) and 6 (n=91) students

from three elementary schools within the Kokomo, Indiana public

school district. Each subject was administered the MAT and a

placement test designed to accompany the basal reading series in use at

each grade level. Estimates of each student's IRL were also inventories

that were individually administered to 25 randomly selected students at

each grade level.

Three analyses of data were conducted: comparisons of percentages of

agreement among estimates of IRL, comparisons of the mean of each

estimate and of a composite IRL estimate, and comparisons of MAT

estimates with the average estimate produced by each of the other

Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly 8:149-168, 1987 149Copyright © 1987 by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

150 M. A. TULLEY AND R. FARR

measures. Results showed a high percentage of agreement, at each

grade level, between the MAT estimates and those provided by each

study of similar design, in which estimates produced by the 1978

edition of the MAT were compared to estimates produced by other

commonly employed methods.

Based upon these results, the authors concluded that the 1986 edition of

the Metropolitan Achievement Tests provides for classroom

instructional reading levels, which can be used as an acceptable

alternative to traditional methods of determining IRL.

The purpose of this study was to compare estimates of instructional

reading levels (IRL) produced by four methods: the Reading

Comprehension Test of the 1986 edition of the Metropolitan

Achievement Tests (MAT), basal reading placement tests, informal

reading inventories, and classroom teachers' judgments.

Students' reading levels are often described by reading teachers and

specialists in terms of three levels: independent, instructional, and

frustration reading levels (Farr and Roser, 1970; Lapp and Flood,

1986). Generally, the instructional level is considered the level of "best

fit", or the level at which a student is most likely to benefit from

instruction. Reading material at this level is sufficiently difficult to

challenge students and yet require teacher assistance, but easy enough

to allow reading to occur. The independent level is considered the

highest level afwhich a student can read without assistance, and is

usually characterized by smooth, efficient reading. The frustration

level, on the other hand, is the level at which the material encountered

is too difficult, and is characterized by a drop in reading fluency and

understanding.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 151

Estimates of students' reading levels are usually determined by the

extent to which students approach criteria of performance in word

recognition and comprehension. Although slight differences in

recommended criteria exist, the instructional level is usually

considered that level at which a student recognizes or correctly

identifies approximately 95-99% of the words, and also comprehends

approximately 70-90% of the material encountered in a particular

passage. A student's independent reading level is considered that level

at which a student recognizes approximately 99% or more of the

words, and comprehends 90% or more of the selection. The

frustration level is considered that level at which a student recognizes

90% or fewer of the words, and comprehends approximately 70% or

less (Alexander, 1983; Rupley and Blair, 1983; Ekwall and Shanker,

1985).

The importance of proper instructional placement cannot be

minimized; there is, perhaps, no single piece of information about

students' academic abilities as important as an accurate estimate of

instructional reading level. Unfortunately, none of the traditionally

available methods of determining IRL is highly precise, nor can it be

assumed that any method is more valid or accurate than any other.

Traditionally, only three methods have been used to determine

instructional reading level: informal reading inventories (IRIs), cloze

tests, and placement tests. Each of these methods is subject to some type

of limitation, however. An IRI, for example, while usually considered

the most valid of these methods, can be time-consuming to administer,

and often requires subjective analyses of student reading behavior.

Cloze passages can be easy to construct and administer, but their use

with primary age students has been seriously questioned. And, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


requirement of an exact match between student responses and deleted

words has created a debate about the extent to which such tests truly

measure student understanding of material. Basal reader placement

tests are often more accurately described as either graded word lists,

modified IRIs, or some combination of the two. Although they are

usually relatively easy to administer (some are even group tests), their

primary purpose is to enable teachers to place students at an

appropriate level within a specific basal series. Thus, an IRL

determined using this type of instrument may have minimal

transferability to other materials encountered by students.

A fourth method, which has emerged only relatively recently, is the use

of standardized tests to determine instructional reading level. The

desirablity of the use of a standardized test is that such an instrument

may alleviate some of the limitations associated with the traditional

methods, such as reducing the time of administration, and achieving

greater objectivity and consistency in scoring. One of the few

standardized tests which yields IRLs is the Reading Comprehension

Test of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT). Studies which

have examined the validity of estimates produced by the 1978 edition of

the MAT have found this method of determining IRL to be generally

valid and accurate. There have been no similar examinations of the

1986 MAT, however, and this present study was initiated to investigate

the validity of estimates produced by this edition of the test.

The Metropolitan Achievement Tests

The grade levels of MAT reading passages generally match the

difficulty of the corresponding grade levels of most basal reading

series. By establishing criteria levels against which student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 1 53

performance on reading comprehension test items is compared, the

MAT can yield a criterion-referenced score expressed as an IRL.

Detailed descriptions of the procedures used to control passage

difficulty and scoring criteria can be found in Content Validity of the

Reading Tests. Metropolitan Special Report No. 5 (1980), and in

summarized form in Smith and Beck (1980).

In determining instructional reading levels, the MAT employs criteria

similar to those used with informal reading inventories, cloze tests, and

basal reader placement tests. The cutoff for the instructional level is

that level at which a student is able to answer correctly a minimum of

60% of the questions pertaining to a particular passage, while

simultaneously answering 100% of the questions correctly on passages

below that level, and 0% correctly on passages above that level.

Because it is unrealistic to expect perfect performance, scoring

procedures allow for adjustments of less than 100% accuracy below

and more than 0% accuracy above the criterion score used to

determine the instructional reading level.

For the 1986 edition of the MAT, the level of difficulty of passages was

controlled using essentially the same procedures employed during

construction of the 1978 edition. Briefly, control of passage difficulty

was achieved in the following manner. The reading levels of passages

intended for kindergarten through grade 3 were controlled by

adhering to the Harris and Jacobsen (1972) formula for vocabulary

control. Passages at these levels were written so that at least 25% of the

vocabulary in each appeared on the Harris and Jacobsen list for that

intended level. Also, passages contained no more than 5% of their

vocabulary above the level for which they were intended, and no words

more than 2 grade levels above that of the passage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1 54 M. A. TULLEY AND R. FARR

Because adherence to these criteria created unnatural and cumbersome

discourse within passages intended for grades 4 through 6, criteria for

these levels were altered so that the total number of words at the

primer level were subtracted from the total number of words in the

passage, and only the non-primer total was considered in determining

the number of words at each level that appeared on the Harris and

Jacobsen list. A minimum of 30% of the vocabulary within each

passage appeared on the list for that intended grade level. The reading

levels of passages intended for grades 7 and above were controlled

through the use of the Dale-Chall formula, because the Harris and

Jacobsen list does not extend beyond grade 6. Emphasis at these levels

was placed upon creating passages of gradually increasing difficulty.

That is, passages at each grade level were clearly more difficult than

passages at preceding grade levels.

Previous Comparative Studies of IRL Estimates

At least three studies have been conducted in which various approaches

to determining instructional reading level have been compared. In

each, estimates produced by the MAT were included, as well as those

produced by the more traditional methods. The results of each study

show strong relationships among scores obtained from the various

methods. Smith and Beck (1980) conducted a study which involved

over 700 subjects from grades 1-4 and 6. Subjects were administered

the Reading Comprehension Test of the 1978 MAT, one of three

commonly available basal reader placement tests, and cloze tests

derived from MAT reading test passages. Additionally, randomly

selected subjects at each grade level were administered a

"standardized" IRL Results suggested a high degree of agreement

among the estimates produced by these four methods of determining an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


IRL, and also showed that the IRL estimates of the MAT were closer to

both the cloze and the basal placement scores, than those scores were to

each other.

Bristow, Pikulski and Pelosi (1983) compared five methods of

estimating instructional reading level. Using a randomly selected

population of 24 pupils at each of three grade levels (2,4, and 6), these

researchers compared actual grade level placement in a basal series

with estimates of IRL derived from a commercially produced informal

reading inventory, a teacher-made IRI constructed from the basal

reader in use in the schools that participated in the study, the reading

subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (1978), and the Reading

Comprehension Test of the 1978 MAT. Results showed that except for

the WRAT, all estimates of instructional reading level were highly

correlated with each other for the entire population. Additionally, for

all subjects the MAT estimates were within one grade level of actual

basal level placement 89% of the time, and within one grade level of

the estimates provided by the teacher-made and the commercially

produced IRIs, 75% and 89% of the time, respectively.

Fair and Beck (1984) describe a study in which IRL estimates produced

by the 1978 MAT were compared with estimates determined using an

informal reading inventory derived from MAT Reading

Comprehension Test passages. Subjects were second and fourth grade

students (n=75 and 64, respectively). All subjects were administered

the MAT Reading Comprehension Test, and fifteen randomly selected

subjects at each grade level were administered the IRL The results,

although limited because of the relatively small number of subjects

selected from a single setting, nonetheless indicated agreement between

these two estimates. For approximately 50% of the subjects, scores

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

156 M. A. TULLEY AND Ft. FARR

from both estimates were at the same level, and another 45% differed

by only one grade level. The MAT was also found to yield a more

conservative estimate of pupils' IRLs. That is, MAT scores tended to

be lower in most cases than those provided by either basal reader

placement tests, or informal reading inventories.

Comparing Estimates of Instructional Reading Level

Grade 2,4, and 6 students were selected from three elementary schools

within the Kokomo, Indiana public school district. Kokomo is in many

respects a typical midwestern community. Located in the chiefly

agricultural north central portioiv of the state, this medium-sized city

has a predominantly white, middle class population of approximately

35,000, and a public school enrollment of just over 8,800 students. The

three participating schools were representative of the 11 elementary

schools within this district, in terms of student enrollment,

administrative structure, and socio-economic status.

Four estimates of students' instructional reading levels were obtained,

with data collection occurring in the same order for all subjects. The

order of data collection was: 1) administration of the MAT in a group

setting, 2) administration of basal reader placement tests (either group

or individual), 3) administration of an IRI constructed from the MAT

(administered to 25 randomly selected students at each grade level),

and 4) completion of a checklist in which teacher estimates of

instructional reading level were listed. Between 3 and 4 weeks were

required to complete the testing at each grade level. Tests were

administered by the authors, who were assisted by two Indiana

University students specifically trained to administer the tests utilized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


during this study. Testing of students was conducted during the

morning, which coincided with that portion of the regular school day

typically devoted to reading instruction. Students were removed from

their regular classrooms and taken to a separate room for all individual

testing. Data collection occurred during the period from January 15 -

April 1, 1986.

Each of the four methods of determining estimates of instructional

reading level used in this study is described below.

Metropolitan Achievement Test. Students were administered the

Reading Comprehension Test of the 1986 MAT (Form L), in a group

setting, according to the directions in the test manual. Grade 2 subjects

were administered the Primary 2 level, which consists of 11 readings

passages ranging in difficulty from the primer level to grade 5. The 55

multiple choice items which accompany these passages measure student

ability to recognize detail and sequence, to infer meaning, cause and

effect, main idea, character analysis, and to draw conclusions.

Grade 4 subjects were administered the Elementary level, which

consists of 11 reading passages ranging in difficulty from grade 2

through grade 6. The 60 multiple choice items which accompany these

passages measure those same comprehension skills listed above. Grade

6 subjects were administered the Intermediate level, which consists of

11 reading passages ranging in difficulty from grade 3 through grades

9-10. The 60 multiple choice items which accompany these passages

measure, in addition to those comprehension skills listed above, student

ability to determine author's purpose and to distinguish fact from

opinion. Time allowed for completion was 40 minutes at each level.

Scoring service was provided by The Psychological Corporation,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


publisher of the MAT.

Basal reader placement test. Approximately one week after

administration of the MAT, students were administered the basal

reader placement test which accompanied whichever basal reading

series was in use at each grade level. Grade 2 and 4 classrooms in this

district were using the 1983 Houghton Mifflin basal reading series.

The placement instrument for the series is an individually administered

Informal Reading Inventory consisting of a series of graded word lists

which students read aloud, and graded passages which students read

silently. Comprehension is assessed through post-reading questions

asked by the examiner.

One modification in the intended use of this placement test occurred.

This instrument is primarily a means of determining if a given level of

the Houghton Mifflin series is appropriate for initial instructional

placement, and was not designed to yield independent, instructional,

and frustrational reading levels. For the purpose of this study,

however, a simple "yes/no" regarding the appropriateness of a given

level was insufficient. Therefore, students were asked to continue

reading passages until instructional and frustration levels could be

determined. Each inventory required between 10 and 20 minutes to

administer.

Grade 6 classrooms in this district were using the 1983 Macmillan basal

reading series. The Initial Placement Inventory used to place students

in that series, is comprised of a group administered silent reading

inventory consisting of graded reading paragraphs followed by written

multiple choice questions, and an individually administered oral

reading inventory consisting of graded paragraphs followed by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 1 59

questions asked orally. The authors of these tests recommend that both

parts of the placement instrument be administered at separate settings,

but they also indicate that either the silent or the oral reading inventory

is sufficient to determine appropriate placement. Although it is

possible to record and to analyze oral reading miscues, for both the

silent and the oral reading inventories only the number of correct

responses to comprehension questions is used to determine reading

levels. Researchers could discern little substantive difference between

these two alternatives, other than format, and opted to administer only

the group silent reading inventory. Approximately 20 minutes was

required for students to complete the inventory.

MAT informal reading inventories. An IRI constructed from the

passages contained in each level of the MAT Reading Comprehension

Test was administered to 25 randomly selected students at each grade

level. IRIs were constructed by selecting one passage from each of the

various reading levels represented on each level of the test. Passages

were ordered from the lowest to the most difficult reading level, which

is the same order in which they appear on the test. Students read

passages orally, and miscues were noted by examiners. Questions asked

at the completion of the oral reading were derived from those same

questions that accompanied the MAT passage. Because IRI questions

were open-ended, rather than multiple choice, some modification in a

few of the items was necessary. In each instance, however, questions

were restated to correspond to the MAT question, and whenever

possible exact wording or phrasing from MAT questions was used as

the stem of the IRI question.

The administration of the IRI followed by approximately 2 weeks the

administration of the MAT. Researchers deliberately spaced the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


administration of the MAT and the IRI to allow as much time as

possible between these two instruments, to minimize whatever effect

might exist because of prior exposure to these passages. Each IRI

required approximately 20 minutes to administer, and instructional

reading levels were determined using those criteria for word

recognition and comprehension typically employed with this type of

instrument.

Teacher estimates of IRL. Each classroom teacher whose students

participated in the study was asked to complete a checklist, in which

they indicated their judgment of each of their students' instructional

reading level. Written directions accompanying the checklist included

a definition of an IRL which emphasized that it should be thought of as

the level at which the student is best able to achieve success, with

assistance, in reading instruction. Teachers were encouraged not to be

influenced by any factor other than each student's reading ability, such

as effort, interest, attitude, general intelligence, behavior, or

attendance.

The checklist consisted of an alphabetical listing of all students, and a

series of columns labeled by grade level from primer through grade 8.

Teachers were asked to place a check in the column across from each

student's name which corresponded to that student's estimated IRL.

Checklists required approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Results

A total of 289 students were tested, 100 at the second grade, 98 at the

fourth grade, and 91 at the sixth grade. Three analyses of data were

conducted: comparisons of percentages of agreement among estimates

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


of IRL, comparisons of the mean of each estimate and of a composite

IRL estimate, and comparisons of MAT estimates with the average

estimate produced by each of the other measures. A discussion of each

follows.

Percentage of agreement among estimates. Table 1 presents by

grade the percentage of agreement among each of the four methods of

estimating instructional reading level. Percentages listed in each

column indicate the extent to which each pair of estimates were the

same, or within 1, 2, 3, or 4 grade levels of one another. Of the 100

grade 2 students tested, for example, the estimates of IRL produced by

the MAT and those produced by the Houghton Mifflin basal placement

test were the same in 40% of the cases, within one grade level of one

another in 90% of the cases, and within 2 grade levels of one another in

100% of the cases.

Also at the second grade, estimates of IRL produced by the MAT and

those provided by teachers were either the same or within one grade

level of one another in 97% of the cases. MAT estimates and those

produced by an informal reading inventory derived from the MAT

(n=25) were either in exact agreement or within one grade level of one

another in 96% of the cases. Similarly high percentages of agreement

were found among all pairs of estimates at this grade level. In only one

instance of paired comparisons did estimates differ by more than two

grade levels.

Among the fourth grade subjects, estimates of instructional reading

level produced by the MAT were in exact agreement or within one

grade level of estimates produced by the Houghton Mifflin basal

placement test in 89% of the cases, and within two grade levels of one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 1

Percentage of Agreement Within Various RangesAmong Estimates of Instructional Reading Level

Range ofAgreement

Exact

Within:+or-1 level

+or-2 levels

+or-3 levels

+or -4 levels

Exact

Within:+oM level

+or-2 levels

+or-3 levels

+or-4 levels

Exact

Within:+oM level

+or-2 levels

+or-3 levels

+or-4 levels

1986 MAT&

BasalPlacement

40%

90%

100%

-

-

31%

89%

98%

100%

-

22%

70%

91%

100%

-

1986 MAT&

TeacherEstimate

57%

97%

100%

-

-

25%

83%

98%

100%

-

26%

79%

93%

100%

-

Comparison

1986 MAT&

MATIRI*

GRADE2

36%

96%

100%

-

-

GRADE4

36%

76%

96%

100%

-

GRADE6

24%

52%

96%

100%

-

BasalPlacement

&TeacherEstimate

35%

95%

99%

100%

-

29%

74%

95%

100%

-

30%

72%

95%

100%

-

BasalPlacement

&MAT IRI*

44%

96%

100%

-

-

24%

72%

96%

100%

-

20%

64%

92%

96%

100%

TeacherEstimate

&MAT IRI*

52%

96%

100%

-

-

28%

80%

-

96%

100%

20%

88%

92%

100%

-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


another in 97% of the cases. MAT estimates and those provided by

teachers were in exact agreement or within one grade level of one

another in 83% of the cases, and within two grade levels of one another

in 98% of the cases. MAT estimates and those produced by an informal

reading inventory derived from the MAT were in exact agreement or

within two grade levels of one another in 96% of the cases.

At the sixth grade level, estimates of instructional reading level

produced by the MAT were in exact agreement or within one grade

level of estimates produced by the Houghton Mifflin basal placement

test in 69% of the cases, and within two grade levels of one another in

90% of the cases. MAT estimates and those provided by teachers were

in exact agreement or within one grade level of one another in 77% of

the cases, and within two grade levels of one another in 91% of the

cases. MAT estimates and those produced by an informal reading

inventory derived from the MAT were in exact agreement or within

one grade level of one another in 52% of the cases, and within two

grade levels of one another in 96% of the cases.

Comparison of mean estimates. The mean estimate produced by

each method of determining instructional reading level was computed

for each subject at each grade level. Also computed was a composite

IRL, arrived at by averaging for each student estimates provided by

teachers, basal placement tests, and IRIs derived from the MAT. Mean

composite IRLs were then computed, and this score compared to the

IRL estimate produced by the MAT.

As shown in Table 2, the mean estimate produced by the MAT was the

highest of the four mean estimates, among both grade 2 and grade 6

subjects, and the second highest estimate among grade 4 subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 2

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH ESTIMATE OF INSTRUCTIONALREADING LEVEL, AND FOR COMPOSITE IRL

ESTIMATE

TEACHER ESTIMATE

BASAL PLACEMENT

MATIRI(N=25)

1986 MAT

COMPOSITE IRL*

MAT MINUS COMPOSITE"

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

GRADE2

2.24.85

2.311.01

2.04.96

2.371.14

2.26.86

.11

.63

GRADE4

4.011.09

4.161.04

4.521.39

4.471.01

4.11.93

.36

.81

GRADE6

5.931.55

5.941.40

5.481.81

6.671.61

5.911.35

.76

.95

•Composite IRL is the average of the estimates provided by basal reader placement test;informal reading inventory derived from the MAT and teacher judgment."Difference between the composite IRL and the 1986 MAT estimate of IRL.

However, the range of mean estimates at each grade level was

relatively small. Among second grade subjects, mean estimates ranged

from 2.04 to 2.37, a difference of less than half a grade level. Among

fourth grade subjects the range was approximately half of a grade

level, and among sixth grade subjects the range was just over one grade

level. MAT estimates compared favorably to composite IRL means,

with a difference of only a fraction of a grade level among second

grade subjects, less than half a grade level among the fourth graders,

and less than one grade level among the sixth graders.

MAT estimates and the average of other estimates. For each

subject, estimates provided by teachers, basal reader placement tests,

and an informal reading inventory derived from the MAT were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


averaged, and that score was compared to the estimate of IRL

produced by the MAT. Table 3 presents by grade level a comparison,

within specific ranges, of these averages and MAT estimates. MAT

estimates were found to be in relatively high agreement with the

average of the other estimates, at all three grade levels. Estimates were

either exact or within one grade level of one another in 91% of the

cases among the second grade subjects, in 83% of the cases among the

fourth grade subjects, and in 68% of the cases among the sixth grade

subjects. In only 1% of the cases among the fourth grade subjects,and in

only 2% of the cases among the sixth grade subjects,did MAT estimates

and the average of the other estimates differ by more than two grade

levels.

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF 1986 MAT ESTIMATES AND AVERAGE OF IRI, BASAL PLACEMENTAND TEACHER ESTIMATES

1986 MAT AND AVERAGE

EXACT

WITHIN HALF GRADE(+ OR -.01 TO .50)

WITHIN HALF TO ONE GRADE(+OR-.51 TO 1.0)

GRADE 2

22%

69%

91%

GRADE 4

16%

46%

83%

GRADE(

9%

36%

68%

WITHIN ONE TO TWO GRADES 100% 98% 99%(+OR-1.1 TO 2.0)

WITHIN TWO TO THREE GRADES - 100% 100%(+ OR -2.1 TO 3.0)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to compare estimates of instructional

reading level produced by four methods. The results suggest that

because of high percentages of agreement among these four methods,

each will yield similar information about students' IRLs.

Any method of determining IRLs is of value only if teachers have

confidence that it will enable them to efficiently and accurately place

students in materials at levels appropriate for optimum instructional

benefit. Because of this, teachers should not rely solely upon one

method of determining IRL, and decisions about students' reading

levels should not be based upon information gained from a single

assessment. The 1986 edition of the MAT, when added to a teacher's

repertoire of assessment techniques, appears able to provide an

efficient and accurate alternative method of determining IRLs, which

can assist with initial placement decisions, and is also useful for

confirming or corroborating information about student abilities

gained from other sources.

Further, there appear to be at least three advantages associated with the

use of the MAT which may not accrue when other methods are

employed. The most noteworthy, perhaps, from the classroom

teacher's perspective, is that the MAT can be more economical in

terms of time and labor. The MAT is administered in a group setting,

and thus may be particularly advantageous for those teachers who must

make placement decisions about a large number of students. Because

MAT estimates of IRL are produced in conjunction with other testing

purposes, use of the MAT may also reduce the amount of testing that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


must be conducted by teachers. And, because the MAT is a

standardized test, estimates meet standards of consistency and

objectivity which probably exceed those of the more traditional,

informal methods of determining IRL.

References

Alexander, J. (1983). Teaching Reading in the Elementary School (2nd

Edition). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Bristow, P.S., Pikulski, J.J., & Pelosi, P.L. (1983). A comparison of

five estimates of reading instructional level. The Reading Tea-

cher, 37, 273-279.

Content Validity of the Reading Tests. Metropolitan Special Report No.

5. (1980). New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Eckwall, E.E., & Shanker, J. (1985). Teaching Reading in the Elemen-

tary School. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Farr, R., & Beck, M. (1984). Validating the instructional reading level

score of the metropolitan achievement tests. Journal of Research

and Development in Education, 17, 55-64.

Farr, R., & Roser, N. (1979). Teaching a child to read. New York:

Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Harris, A.J., & Jacobsen, M.D. (1972). Basic Elementary Reading

Vocabulary. New York: Macmillan.

Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1986). Teaching students to read. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Company.

Rupley, W.H., & Blair, T.R. (1983). Reading diagnosis and remedia-

tion: Classroom and clinic. (2nd Edition). Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Co.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014


Smith, W., & Beck, M.D. (1980). Determining instructional reading

levels with the 1978 metropolitan achievement tests. The Read-

ing Teacher, 34, 313-319.

Wide Range Achievement Test, 1978 Edition. (1978). Wilmington,

Delaware: Jastak Associates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

36 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

A COMPARISON OF FOUR METHODS OF DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS