1
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Samantha Looney
School of Education, Liberty University
2
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Analysis of Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR-2)
Summary of Assessment
This assessment was created based on Carroll’s theory of reading comprehension and Chall’s
stage theory of reading (Rathvon, 2006). Already I find this a great start, using previously well-
established research on reading theories to create a well-blended assessment. The DAR-2 has
nine subtests that are based on the research of student patterns regarding their strengths and
weaknesses in reading. The purpose of this assignment is twofold. One part is to provide a
comprehensive assessment of a child’s strengths and weaknesses in reading and language.
Secondly, the purpose is to inform on instructional interventions that can be used to target the
weaknesses (Konold, 2010). The assessments internal consistency was rated high using the
Spearman-Brown model. To validate reliability based on classification consistency, Huynh’s
index was used on three subtests to determine good classification. Interrater reliability
investigations were also used to determine consistency of scores, but only on two subtests
(Konald, 2010). The assessments validity was measured based on the amount of researched used,
investigations on validity content, construct, and criterion-related evidence. For criterion-related
validity, the DARS-2 was measured against the Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests and the
differences were moderate and had positive results. This shows that the criteria on the DARS-2 is
on point with what it is presenting. Construct validity is weaker than the other two points
(Konold, 2010).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
The TTS lessons that are provide from the site for interventions are very “brief, lack evidence of
a research base or references to additional resources, and are too limited in scope for effectively
addressing higher level reading skills such as comprehension and vocabulary” (Rathvon, 2006). I
3
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
find this disheartening but applaud the attempt. I believe this is also a strength because it gives
the instructor at least a starting point on interventions and what else to investigate for additional
resources.
Justification and Use of the Assessment
I would use this test if there was a time constraint, or if I needed a starting point. Some reviews
were critical on brevity of the assessment but that can be used alongside other assessments to
gain a full view of the needs. I would feel confident using this assessment based on the ease of
administration and scoring. Also, the technical data supports a diverse sample. The technical data
also supports a confidence in the research used.
4
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Name of Instrument Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)
5
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Author(s) of Instrument Roswells, Florence G.; Chall, Jeanne S.; Curtis, Mary E.; Kearns,
Gail
Date of Publication 1992-2006
Publisher PRO-ED
1) Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
The subtests include word recognition, oral reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading
comprehension, spelling, and five additional subtests to target reading ability.
2) Describe the age range.
The population for this assessment is K-12.
3) State the purpose of the instrument.
This assessment is designed to function as an assessment of individual reading ability for the DARTTS
testing and teaching program.
4) Describe the examiner qualifications.
No specific qualifications listed in the review but based on the reading it is my understanding the
administrator is a teacher or equivalent.
5) Describe the available scores.
Traditional standard scores are not available but raw scores are converted to percentile ranks at
separate 1-year grade intervals. (Konold, 2010)
6) Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).
The author used a sample of 1,395 students from public and private schools, demographically broad
with both genders, different races/ethnicity, and various geographic locations. Reliability based on
internal consistency, classification consistency, and interrater reliability. The validity of this test is
high, based on numerous amounts of research, validity investigations, as well as compliance with the
National Reading Panel.
7) Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
The assessment pack includes detailed directions for administering and scoring in their manual. A
script is also provided for administration and recording/scoring materials. There is also a website to
assist the administrator.
8) State the approximate administration and scoring time.
The assessment time is approximately forty minutes.
9) Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
The administrator will use the manual as well as the recording and scoring tools provided on the
website, all are easy to follow based on reviews.
10) Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
Data shows the test was given to ESL students, but no adaptation given.
6
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
11) Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.
Used with students with LD, the test is short and would be a good starting point to use with students
with disability.
12) Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.
No adaptation information provided.
13) Describe the strengths of the instrument.
The test will give exact interventions to use for each individual student based on their scores from the
test. This helps guide the instructor on future lessons and really helping the student.
14) State any weaknesses of the instrument.
The investigations done on validity were only based on a few subtests. More investigations need to be
done on each additional subtest to truly gain a fuller understanding of this assessment. Also, most
subtests are short, and do not allow further in-depth content coverage. (Rathvon, 2006)
15) Additional comments, information, and observations:
Mixed reviews, but more testing should be done with a focus on a more diverse geographic region.
7
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Analysis of Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale 3rd Edition (Piers-Harris 3)
Summary of Assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluation the description and self-evaluation and self-
concept of a student. Simply put, what does the student think of themselves? The short, fifty-
eight item assessment takes only approximately ten to fifteen minutes. The scoring manual
provides guidelines for interpreting the scores for the qualified examiner. This assessment is
good for all students, and even comes in a Spanish version. For determining validity, the sample
used to was not gendered biased and had differing socioeconomic status levels, different race and
ethnicities and varied in geographic locations. This data used was consistent with the current
U.S. Census date (Wright). The Piers-Harris 3 measured against Tennessee Self-Concept Scale,
Risk Inventory & Strengths Evaluation showed small conceptual overlap and low to moderate
concurrence. This randomized sampling shows us the structure of the test is solid.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
This assessment can be used with any student. It allows for various adaptations to meet student
needs. If the student needs a read aloud, the test will accommodate. Since there is a Spanish
version, English as a Second Language (ESL) students who speak Spanish will also be
accommodated. This test is also a great tool to use to help identify students at risk for other
disorders if used alongside other assessments (Wright).
Justification and Use of the Assessment
Confidence in a student is a must, it should be a priority for teachers. I have seen it in my own
classroom when a student thinks they are doing poorly, they start to perform poorly elsewhere,
they get discouraged. Knowing where a student thinks they stand is critical to their education.
8
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Using this assessment to understand a student better could be a game changer. Also, having the
scores and percentile plotted to display their information is a great tracking tool to see if their
confidence increases with different instruction, accommodations, or whatever changes are made
(Sink, in press).
9
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Name of Instrument Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale Third Ed. (Piers-Harris 3)
10
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Author(s) of Instrument Piers, Ellen V.; Harris, Dale B.; Shemmassian, Shirag K.;
Herzberg, David S.
Date of Publication 1969-2018
Publisher Western Psychological Services
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
There are nine subtests to measure self-reported self-concept.
2. Describe the age range.
The population age is six through twenty-two years old.
3. State the purpose of the instrument.
This assessment is designed to measure an individual’s own evaluation of their behavior and
attitude.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.
The examiner should have training and experience in the basic principles of psychological and
educational assessment, test interpretation, and self-concept. (Sink)
5. Describe the available scores.
There is a total score of 58 items.
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms,
research).
The test has updated norms based on a national standard sample. Sample includes
respondents with diagnosed disabilities and learning disorders. Score interpretation accuracy
is validated through a Response Bias Index and Inconsistent Response Index. Research used
with a sample of 1,300 individuals to provide the six-factor model. Samples were conducted
with control and non-control groups.
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
This is a brief assessment, easy to score by hand or electronically. It provides practical
examples to help with assessing and scoring.
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
The approximate time for administration is ten to fifteen minutes.
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
A manual with guidelines for interpreting is provided. The scores are broken into easy-to-
follow domain scales. Standard scores and percentile ranks can be plotted to display
respondent information. (Sink)
11
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
The assessment is also available in Spanish.
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have
disabilities.
This test is appropriate for children with disabilities as it allows for adaptations to read aloud
and the samples included children with various disabilities.
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
The assessment allows for the administrators to read aloud the test items.
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
This test allows for various adaptations to meet student needs. It is also a tool used to help
identify those students at risk for various disorders (Wright)
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.
The samples used to determine validity were small. Although there is great adaptation for
Spanish speaking students, there is not enough clear data on this versions test manual.
(Wright)
15. Additional comments, information, and observations:
This test should be given alongside other assessments to obtain a more detailed view of the
respondent’s self-concept. This assessment can also be used diagnostically with other
assessments to evaluate for possible disorders.
Analysis of Test of Early Reading Ability 4th Edition (TERA-4)
12
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Summary of Assessment
The Test for Early Reading Ability is designed for the emergent reader. The purpose is to
identify and help children who have significant problems in reading. The goal is not to assess for
oral vocab or phonological awareness because the author believes there are better suited
assessments in that area. (SCOTT) The subtests measure the child’s knowledge of letters and
identify initial and final sounds in printed words. It measures for familiarity with common
orthographic rules, such as book handling skills and knowledge of symbols and punctuation
marks. Finally, it measures the ability=to name letters of the alphabet, read basic sight words, and
comprehend print (Gischlar, 2019).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
Their scoring system is a definite strength for the tool. The online system is quick, efficiently
converts raw scores to standard, generates percentile ranks, and identifies intraindividual
differences. It is quick to obtain a summary report to further track progress (Gischlar, 2019). This
test helps determine the degree of intervention needed. The problem with determining the degree
of intervention needed, is that it offers no progress monitoring. You can obtain the reports and
track that progress on your own, but it is not a tool available with this assessment.
Justification and Use of the Assessment
The validity and reliability of this assessment are highly respected. With each addition that
comes out, they address what changes were made and why. I appreciate and respect the evolution
of the instrument. “TERA-4 protocols were randomly chosen from the normative sample. The
scorings were correlated, and results yielded high reliability, with coefficients above .90 for all
subtest and index scores” (Gischlar, 2019). I would justify using this assessment because this
13
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
assessment is striving for something better each time. Just as education changes, and curricula,
so too should assessments. Their samples are appropriately diverse as well.
Name of Instrument Test of Early Reading Ability- Fourth Edition(TERA-4)
Author(s) of Instrument Reid,D. Kim; Hresko,Wayne P.; Hammill, Donald D.
14
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Date of Publication 1981-2018
Publisher PRO-ED
1) Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
The assessments consist of three subtests: Alphabet, Conventions and Meaning.
2) Describe the age range.
The population range for this assessment is for children in preschool through second grade and ages 8
through 11.
3) State the purpose of the instrument.
This assessment is designed to help identify children who have significant problems in reading
development and to determine the degree of their problems.
4) Describe the examiner qualifications.
The examiner should have formal training in assessment administration, scoring and interpretation.
5) Describe the available scores.
The test authors also conducted a diagnostic accuracy analysis revealing that a cut score of 92 on the
composite score was predictive of diagnosing a learning disability but the standard score of 92 is
within average range so there is additional research needed here.
6) Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).
With each new edition, new norms are established. New test sample data as well as new research to
support validity and reliability. Various curricula were examined to help structure the updated TERA-
4. There are five types of reliability data and three types of validity data.
7) Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
The manual provides a bulleted list of basic testing procedures.
8) State the approximate administration and scoring time.
15-45 minutes for administration
9) Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
The assessment provides a scoring table as well as an online scoring system. Then the scorer can use
the provided normative scores to compare. The online system offers a quick, efficient way to convert
raw scores to standard scores, generate percentile ranks, identify intraindividual differences, and
obtain a summary report
10) Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
This test is primarily for English speaking students.
11) Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.
The test does not specifically detail guidelines for students with disabilities but does allow for break
15
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
times as needed by the child.
12) Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.
There does not seem to be an apparent adaptation for this assessment with students who have
special needs other than the allowed break times as needed for the child.
13) Describe the strengths of the instrument.
This test helps determine the degree of intervention needed for a reading problem as well as
recognizing the strengths for each student.
14) State any weaknesses of the instrument.
There is no progress monitoring system in place for this assessment.
15) Additional comments, information, and observations:
The TERA-4 should not be used as a standalone, but in conjunction with authentic assessments,
observations, criterion-referenced tests, and informal surveys. (Gischlar, 2019) They explain what
they have changed and why.
16
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Analysis of Gray Oral Reading Test 5th Edition (GORT-5)
Summary of Assessment
The first Gray’s Standarized Oral Reading paragraphs were used in 1915 until the first published
GORT in 1963. This assessment continues to change with the times (Della-Piana, 2014). The
purpose of this assessment is to identify students with reading difficulties, diagnose reading
disabilities, evaluate progress in reading, and determine strengths and weaknesses in reading. I
like this assessment because they have continually proven they are open to critiques and will
revise based on feedback. This tool helps identify severity of reading problem and assists in
making placement decisions for interventions. It also helps evaluate the student progress or the
interventions effectiveness. All reliability testing performed “yielded estimates appropriate for
the authors’ intended purpose of the test with a clear exposition for understanding the error
range” (Della-Piana, 2014).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
This tool is well praised for assessing reading fluency and comprehension and well praised as a
diagnostic tool, but not by itself. The weaknesses of this assessment are cautionary. There is not
a well-defined qualification for who should administer the test. Although the manual states what
is “desirable”, when administering this test, they do not hammer the point that an administrator
must be well trained to “ensure valid and accurate results” (Krach, 2014).
Justification and Use of the Assessment
I would highly justify the use of this assessment only by an expert. In the manual on page thirty-
three they state, “Tests don’t diagnose, trained professionals do” (Krach, 2014). If working
together with a trained professional to diagnose a disability, this test would be at the top of the
17
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
list. It has excellent standardization and norms. The history of validity for the GORT-5 aligns
well with the definition from the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing that it is
evidence and theory based to support interpretations of test scores.
18
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
Name of Instrument Gray Oral Reading Tests Fifth Edition (GORT-5)
Author(s) of Instrument Wiederholt, J. Lee; Bryant, Brian R.
Date of Publication 1963-2012
Publisher PRO-ED
1) Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
The assessment provides reading passages for the student to assess ability.
2) Describe the age range.
The test is designed for ages six through 23.
3) State the purpose of the instrument.
The purpose of this assessment is to identify students with reading difficulty, diagnose reading
disabilities, determine strengths and weaknesses, and evaluate students’ progress in reading.
4) Describe the examiner qualifications.
It is “desirable” that users have supervised experience in administration, scoring, and
interpretation.
5) Describe the available scores.
Click or tap here to enter text.
6) Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms,
research).
The test was formed using samples from across multiple regions of the U.S. of diverse
students of different gender, race, parental education, and household income (Della-Piana,
2014). GORT-5 includes content-related evidence of validity, criterion-prediction evidence of
validity, and construct-related evidence of validity evidence: rationale for stories and scores,
non-bias stories, appropriate, nonacademic. Criterion-prediction validity addressed through
correlations with other tests to show the test is measuring ability rather than something else
(Della-Piana, 2014).
7) Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
The manual provides a guide on how to administer and score the test as well as the technical
data and interpreting scores. It also provides examples to guide the administrator.
8) State the approximate administration and scoring time.
The time frame for administering the test is twenty to thirty minutes.
9) Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
The assessment provides an examiner’s manual that includes information on how to administer
and score the test, interpret the scores, and provides the technical characteristics of the test
(Della-Piana, 2014).
19
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
10) Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
This assessment does not seem adaptable to an ESL student.
11) Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have
disabilities.
Depending on the disability I do not see a problem with this assessment as it will help
diagnosis reading disabilities.
12) Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
There are timed portions that are not adaptable, therefore I would say this test is not adaptable
for use with some children with special needs.
13) Describe the strengths of the instrument.
The content of the test was developed to be interesting, non-biased and appropriate for
students. Stories are also inclusive of vocabulary that students are exposed to.
14) State any weaknesses of the instrument.
It does not measure any underlying constructs of reading (e.g., phonemic awareness, basic
word recall). There is expressed concern that the test administrators need to be well trained to
ensure valid and accurate results on the miscue analysis=(Krach, 2014).
15) Additional comments, information, and observations:
=The authors appropriately caution the user that supervised practice in administration is
“desirable” (manual, p. 5) and that it is not appropriate to make diagnostic instructional
decisions based on a single test. As the test manual reports on page thirty-three, “Tests don’t
diagnose, trained professionals do (Krach, 2014)
20
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION: READING ASSIGNMENT
References
Della-Piana, GABRIEL M. (2014). Review of Gray Oral Reading Tests–Fifth Edition.
Gischlar, Karen L. (2019). Review of the Test of Early Reading Ability—Fourth Edition.
Konold, Timothy R. (2010). Review of the Diagnostic Assessments of Reading, Second Edition.
Krach, Kathleen S. (2014). Review of Gray Oral Reading Tests–Fifth Edition.
Piers, E. V., Harris, D. B., Shemmassian, S. K., & Herzberg, D. S. (2018).=Piers-Harris Self-
Concept Scale, Third Edition.
Rathvon, Natalie. (2006) Review of the Diagnostic Assessments of Reading, Second Edition.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2018).=Test of Early Reading Ability--Fourth
Edition.
Roswell, F. G., Chall, J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns, G. (2006).=Diagnostic Assessments of
Reading™, Second Edition.
Scott, Amy N. Review of the Test of Early Reading Ability—Fourth Edition.
Sink, Christopher A. (in press). Review of the=Piers-Harris;Self-Concept;Scale, Third Edition.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012).=Gray Oral Reading Tests–Fifth Edition.
Wright, Claudia R. Review of the=Piers-Harris;Self-Concept;Scale, Third Edition.
