Reading Assessment and Instruction
What this domain tests
Assessment purposes and tools, interpretation of scores, and the instructional decisions that follow - grouping, intervention, and differentiation within an MTSS/RTI framework.
Purposes and tools
- Screening: brief, predicts risk (e.g., DIBELS/Acadience letter-naming fluency, ORF). Given to all students, fall/winter/spring.
- Diagnostic: pinpoints gaps - phonics inventories, error analysis, running records, oral language measures.
- Progress monitoring: short alternate forms given weekly or biweekly to judge response to intervention.
- Outcome/summative: end-of-year or program evaluation.
Norm-referenced tests compare to a sample; criterion-referenced tests compare to a standard. Reliability covers consistency (test-retest, internal consistency, inter-rater); validity covers whether scores mean what they claim (content, construct, criterion). Grade-equivalent scores are misleading and should not drive decisions.
Running records
Accuracy = (words read correctly ÷ total words) × 100. Self-correction ratio = self-corrections ÷ (errors + self-corrections); 1:3 means one self-correction per three problems. Betts levels: independent 95–100%, instructional 90–95%, frustration below 90%. Miscue analysis codes meaning, structure, and visual cues - useful for description, but not a substitute for systematic decoding data.
Worked example
A student reads a 100-word passage with 12 uncorrected errors and 4 self-corrections. Accuracy = 88 ÷ 100 = 88% → frustration level. The teacher drops to easier text for fluency practice, then analyzes errors: if most are vowel-team errors, target that pattern rather than lowering text level indefinitely.
Traps
Reporting grade equivalents; counting self-corrections as errors; confusing screening (who is at risk) with diagnosis (what is wrong); raising text level before accuracy is secure; ignoring fidelity and dosage when judging intervention effectiveness.