ED 322 477

bodUktia RESUME'

CS 010 172

AUTHOR Johns, Jerry L.TITLE Research and Progress in Informal Reading Inventories

(An Annotated Bibliography).PUB DATE 90NOTE 40p.

PUB TYPE Reference Materials - Bibliographies (131)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; Elementary Education;

*Informal Assessment; *Informal Reading Inventories;Preservice Teacher Education; Reading Comprehension;*Reading Diagnosis; *Reading Research

IDENTIFIERS Reading Behavior

ABSTRACT

This 90-item annotated bibliography contains materialprimarily published after 1977. The bibliography provides a readilyavailable resource related to informal reading inventories (IRIs).The three sections of the document are: (1) basic information; (2)research; and (3) descriptive mports. The bibliography is designedto be useful to a diverse group of educators: teachers, researchers,and especially those involved in reading assessment or thepreparation of prospective teachers. (RS)

******* ************ ****** ******************* **************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

*********************** ***** ********************* ************* * ********

X--

4,-

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

..1/-7eky L. JLAris

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). '

U S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOnce of Educabceat Research and Improvement

EDUCMIONAI RESOURCES INFORMATION3E1TER (ERIC)

.s. 0 Pus document has Coen reproduced isreceived from the person or orpanizahonorlginatir g a

0 Minor changes have Coen made to impovereproduction duality

Pants ch vane or opMions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent Wipe!OERI pcmhhon or pokly

Research and Progress

in

Informal Reading Inventories

(An Annotated Bibliography)

Jerry L. Johns

Northern Illinois University Reading Clinic

DeKalb, Illinois 60115

1990

3

A

CONTENTS

PREFACE

SECTION I: BASIC INFORMATION 5

Annotated Bibliography 5

Overview 5

History 6

General Critiques 7

General Reviews of Published Inventories 8

SECTION II: RESEARCH 10

Validity and Reliability- 10

Placement, Criteria, and Reading Levels 13

Comprehension Questions 18

-Comparisons With Standardized Tests 21

Use, Readability, and Other Factors 24

SECTION III: DESCRIPTIVE REPORTS 30

General Uses 30

Issues and Criteria 31

Miscue Analysis 36

Special Populations 39

4

PREFACE

The intent of this annotated bibliography is to provide a

readily available resource related to informal reading inventor-

ies (IRIs). The materials cited in this volume, for the most

part, were published since 1977, the year the first lengthy

annotated bibliography on IRIs was made available (Johns, Garton,

Schoenfelder, and Skriba, 1977). The current bibliography should

be fairly inclusive from about 1977, although it is not exhaustive.

Some of the annotations were adapted from the original articles or

ERIC documents.

Because the growth in IRIs has spanned nearly half a century,

I also decided to include especially useful items written prior to

1977. In most cases, these items dealt with history or research

areas.

This annotated bibliography is designed to be useful to a

diverse group of educators: ..aachers, researchers, and especi-

ally those involved in reading assessment or the preparation of

prospentive teachers.

I want to express my appreciation to Karen Mack and Elaine

Kohlin for assisting with the annotations. Margaret Jacob and

Tanya MaKarrall deserve thanks for typing the manuscript and for

making numerous revisions. Their patience (tolerance?) with my

desire for accuracy and consistency deserves very special

recognition.

5

JLJ

SECTION I: BASIC INFORMATION

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Johns, Jerry L., Sharon Garton, Paula Schoenfelder, and PatriciaSkriba (compilers). Assessing Reading Behavior: InformalReading Inventories. Newark, Delaware: International ReadingAssociation, 1977,.

Presents annotations of approximately one hundred pub-lications relating to IRIs. The listing is fairlyinclusive from 1970 through 1976. Selected publicationswritten prior to 1970 were also inuluded. Entries wereplaced in one of the following categories: (1) historyand critique; (2) overview; (3) guidelines for construc-tion and use; (4) descriptive and rt.search reports; (5)comparisons with standardized tests; (6) psycholinguisticinsights; and (7) related factors (motivation, stress).A listing of doctoral dissertations and master's thesesis also included.

aVERVIEW

Johilson, Marjorie Seddon, Roy A. Kress, and John j. Pikulski.Informal Reading Inventories (2nd ed.). Newark, Delaware:International Reading Association, 1987.

Presents a comprehensive description of the use of IRIs.This book is designed to provide teachers and realingspecialists with practical strategies for forming diag-nostic impressions that are useful for planning readinginstruction. Respectively, chapters discuss (1) thepurpose and nature of IRIs; (2) estimating reading levelsfrom IRIs; (3) administering, recording, and scoring indi-vidual IRIs; (4) diagnostically interpreting the resultsof IRIs; (5) individual word recognition tests; (6) con-structing informal reading inventories and word recogni-tion tests; (7).group informal reauing inventories; and(8) conclusions. It is argued that the best IRIs evaluatereading through procedures that are as close as possibleto natural reading aativities and that they attempt toachieve a close fit between assessment and instructionalmaterials. Further, it is emphasized that teachers musthave a sound understanding of both the reading processand the flexible, diagnostic uses of IRIs before usingthem either to determine a student's reading level or to

5

answer specific instructional questions. The appendix,which comprises almost half of the book, presents compre-hensive reports and interpretations of the results of theadministration of IRIs to three children. The discussionof these cases illustrates how numerical criteria andqualitative considerations are combined to estimate readingand listening levels.

Betts, Emmett Albert. Foundations of Reading Instruction. NewYork: American Book, 1957.

Deals with specific reading needs and includes very specificand detailed information on IRIs in Chapter 21. The IRI isdiscussed in terms of uses, basic assumptions, reading levels,inventory construction, general administration procedures,limitations, advantages, and use of group inventories. Thechapter includes examples of separate checklists that can beused by experienced and inexperienced examiners to recordobservations made during IRI administrations. It includesa summary form used in the author's reading clinic.

HISTORY

Johns, Jerry L., and Mary K. Lunn. "The Origin and Developmentof the Informal Reading Inventory," in Jerry L. Johns, BasicReading Inventory (4th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/HuntPublishing Company, 1988, 70-80.

Traces the development of the IRI from the 1920s throughthe 1980s. The authors discuss the future of the IRI asa diagnostic tool and conclude that it is a valuable wayto assess reading performance.

Walter, Richard B. "History and Development of the Informal Read-ing Inventory," 1974. Microfiche ED 098 539.

Presmts the history of the IRI and the problems of validity,reliability, and the selection of performance criteria.Discusses the value of IRIs for determining the instructionallevel of students. The paper concludes with selectedliterature which supports the contention that most teacherscannot be successful in using the IRI without training inconstruction, administration, and interpretation of such aninstrument.

6

Beldin, H.O. "Informal Reading Testing: Historical Review andReview of the Research," in William K. Durr (Ed.), ReadingDifficulties: Diagnosis, Correction, and Remedintion. Newark,Delaware: international Reading Association, 1970, 67-84,

Presents a historical overview of the thinking, experi-ence, and literature of the analysis of reading perfor-mance. The author reviews the years from 1900 to 1969for specific contributions to the present development ofthe IRI. Reading authorities are cited along with theirresearch and conclusions on criteria, sources of testmaterials, and evaluations of word perception errors.Included is a list of references that have had significantinput into the IRI.

GENERAL CRITIQUES

Caldwell, JoAnne. "A New Look at the Old Informal Reading Inven-tory," The Reading Teacher, 39 (November, 1985), 168-173.

Indicates that the format and the use of the IRI need tobe modified in order to address recent research findingsof schema theory (prior knowledge), text analysis (narra-tive and expository), cohesion, and metacognition. Theauthor urges that IRIs be controlled for the effect ofprior knowledge and topic familiarity while assessing com-prehension through recall or retellings.

McKenna, Michael C. "Informal Reading Inventories: A Review ofthe Issues," The Reading Teacher, 36 (March, 1983), 670-679.

Reviews the literature concerning IRIs and discusses anumber of issues related to them: readability, questionchoice, passage dependency, scoring criteria, and allow-able miscues. Guidelines for constructing and using IRIsare offered. Two specific problems are noted for IRIs atthe secondary level: passage readability and scoringcriteria.

Pikulski, John J., and Timothy Shanahan. "Informal Reading Inven-tories: A Critical Analysis," in John J. Pikulski and TimothyShanahan (Eds.), Approaches to the Informal Evaluation ofReading. Newark, lielaware: International Reading Association,1982, 94-116.

Updates a 1974 review by assessing progress in IRIs andconsidering new issues. This analysis considers reli-

7

ability (interrater, alternate form), validity, criteriafor reading levels, the impact of miscue theory, andcomprehension questions. A study comparing teacher-constructed and commercially-prepared IRIs with 33 stu-dents found the same instructional level 67% of the time.Eight conclusions are presented at the end of the review.

Pikulski, John. "A Critical Review: Informal Reading Inventor-ies," The Reading Teacher, 28 (November, 1974), 141-151.

Discusses the early history of informal diagnostic pro-cedures, points out the continued existence of severalperplexing problems regarding the use of IRIs, and reviewsproblem areas with the idea of approaching some possiblesolutions. The IRI is discussed with regard to establish-ment of levels, evaluation of validity and reliability,use of quantitative or qualitative criteria, and questiontypes which should be included. Admits that some impreci-sion and uncertainty exist with regard to informal pro-cedures, but concludes that IRIs based upon instructionalmaterials pravide the closest possible match between teach-ing and testing. Suggests methodological questions con-cerning IRIs which deserve closer scrutiny by researchers.

GENERAL REVIEWS OP PUBLISHED INVENTORIES

Harris, Larry, A., and Jerome A. Niles. "An Analysis of PublishedInformal Reading Inventories," Reading Horizons, 22 (Spring,1982), 159-174.

Offers advantages and disadvantages of commercial IRIsand analyzes 12 IRIs in four areas: (1) purposes; (2)format; (3) scoring procedures and criteria; and (4)instructions for interpretation and use. Results of theanalysis are presented in eight tables. The authorsconclude that considerable variation exists among IRIs.

Jongsma, Kathleen S., and Eugene A. Jongsma. "Test Review: Com-mercial Informal Reading Inventories," The Reading Teacher, 34,(March, 1981), 697-705.

Reviews 11 commercial IRIS in three major areas: (1)contents (features of the passages and questions); (2)procedures for administering and scoring; and (3) sug-gestions for interpreting results. A summary of resultsis presented in a lengthy, helpful table. A list of ninerecommendations is also presented for those interested inpurchasing and using commercial IRIs.

Galen, Nancy. "Informal Reading Inventories for Adults: AnAnalysis," Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 3 (March,1980), 10-14.

Analyzes four IRIs developed specifically for adults.Four tables summarize the results of the analysis inthese areas: (1) word lists and passages; (2) compre-hension questions; (3) readability; and (4) scorina andevaluation guidelines. None of the IRIs is regarded asclearly superior to the others.

Cramer, Eugene H. "Informal Reading Inventories Go Commercial,"Curriculum Review, 19 (November, 1980), 424-429.

Presents some background information on IRIs and analyzesseven commercial IRIs. Major areas for the analysisinclude: (1) word lists, passages, readability; (2) ques-tions and passage dependency; (3) objectives and fieldtesting; and (4) special features and teachers' comments.The format for presenting each IRI is the same so compari-sons can be made quite easily.

Anderson, William W. "Commercial Informal Reading Inventories:A Comparative Review," Reading World, 17 (December, 1977),99-104.

Offers some important ways commercial IRIs differ fromone another and reviews three IRIs. A brief narrativedescription of each is given regarding validity, reli-ability, content validity, and passage dependent ques-tions. Areas of commonalty are listed. The authorconcludes that none of the three IRIs can be categori-cally endorsed or dismissed as having little value.Despite similarities in purposes and design, each IRIseems appropriate for different circumstances whichthe author depicts. Included is a chart outlining thevariable characteristics of the three IRIs considered.

9

10

SECTION II: RESEARCH

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Klesius, Janell P., and Susan P. Homan. "A Validity and Reli-ability Update on the Informal Reading Inventory with Sugges-tions for Improvement," Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(February, 1985), 71-76.

Provides a review of research on the validity and reli-ability of IRIs. The areas first examined were contentand concurrent validity. The research concerning thevalidity revealed that one cannot be assured that apassage taken from a basal text is comparable to theremaining material. The other area researched focusedon reliability of IRIs. Specifically, the authorsfocused on interscorer reliability and effect of passagelength on student performance. The authors provided tensuggestions for teachers. Also provided are suggestionsfor evaluating IRIs. The authors suggest a need forcareful evaluation of these instruments. Teachersincrease the validity and reliability of the IPI oncethey become aware of the need for careful evaluation.

Fuchs, Lynn, S., Douglas Fuchs, and Stanley L. Deno. "Reliabilityand Validity of Curriculum-Based Informal Reading Inventories,"Reading Research Quarterly, 18 (Fall, 1982), 6-26.

Investigates reliability and validity of standard andsalient IRI procedures. Employing 91 elementary-agestudents, this study examined the technical adequacy ct(1) choosing a criterion of 95% accuracy for word recog-nition to determine an instructional level, (2) arbi-trarily selecting a passage to =present the difficultylevel of a basal reader, and (3) employing one-levelfloors and ceilings to demarcate levels beyond whichbehavior is not sampled. Correlational and congruencyanalyses supported the exte.rnal validity of the 95%standard but questioned the reliability and validity ofpassage sampling procedures and one-level floors andceilings. Sampling over occasions and test forms isdiscussed as a more valid IRI procedure.

Helgren-Lempesis, Valerie, A., and Charles T. Mangrum II. "AnAnalysis of Alternate-form Reliability of Three Commercially-prepared Informal Reading Inventories," kaading ResearchQuarterly, 21 (Spring, 1986), 209-215.

10

11

Studies 75 fourth-grade students from two elementaryschools randomly assigned to one of three commercially-prepared IRIs. Forms A and B of the Analytical, Basic,and Ekwall reading inventories were administered to thesethree groups. Pearson and generalizability coefficientsranged between .60 and .78. Accotding to estimated var-iance components from the generalizability analysis,little error could be directly attlAbuted to the forms,as the subjects were the source of the greatest variance.Although the results of the study did not reveal perfectreliability, they were by no means as unreliable as somecritics have suggested. Future research is needed toaddress the question of what an acceptable level of reli-ability would be for IRIs.

Bowden, Nancy B., and Wilson H. Lane. "A Study of Fourth GradeStudents' Reading Comprehension Measures in Short and LongPassages of an Informal Reading Inventory," November, 1979.Microfiche ED 186 855.

Compares the reliability of short versus long passages inIRIs. After 132 fourth-grade students were tested withthe Standard Reading Inventory, Form B, they read longerpassages in either the oral or silent modes. Studentswith higher silent reading scores read long passagesorally, while students with higher oral reading scores orcomparable oral/silent reading scores read long passagesin the silent mode. The results suggested that the 70%criterion normally used with short passages inadequatelypredicted reading levels for the longer selections. Theincreased difficulty of long passages was evident by themarked decreases in comprehension scores. Students withbetter comprehension s'res in either the short-silent orshort-oral modes appeared to be frustrated by the longer-reading materials. The students with comparable oral/silent reading levels in the short passages showed signif-icantly different scores on the long passages, suggestingthat the increased difficulty of long passages inhibitadtheir comprehension considerably. Since the long passagesappear to be more difficult than short passages at thesame levels, it was suggested that the trend toward usingmore lenient interpretation criteria in informal readinginventories might be based on false assumptions.

Fuchs, Lynn S., Douglas Fuchs, and Linn Maxwell. "The Validityof Informal Reading Comprehension Measures," Remedial andSpecial Education, 9 (March/April, 1988), 20-28.

11

12

Assesses the criterion, construct, and concurrent vali-dity of four informal reading comprehension measures:question answering tests, recall measures, oral passagereading tests, and cloze techniques. Mildly and moder-ately handicapped middle and junior high school boys(N = 70) were administered the informal measures in onesitting, with four passages equally represented acrossthe four measures and with the administration order ofmeasures counterbalanced. Criterion tests, the ReadingComprehension and Word Study Skills subtests of theStanford Achievement Test, also were administered in aseparate sitting. Results indicated that the oralreading rate score demonstrated the strongest criterionvalidity, with adequate construct and concurrentvalidity. A second acceptable index was the writtenrecall measure. Implications for designing reading com-prehension monitoring procedures are discussed.

Christine, Charles T., Lawrence A. Anderson, Edythe Bleznak, JaneB. Levine, and Phyllis Lewy. "The Between Teacher Reliabilityof the Ekwall Reading Inventory and the Classroom ReadingInventory," October, 1982. Microfiche ED 232 145.

Uses a test-retest research design to study the reliabil-ity of the Classroom Reading Inventory (CRI) and theEkwall Reading Inventory (ERI). Independent variables oftest administrator to subject, test administrator to test,subject to test, and test order were randomized. Sub-jects include 31 children aged 7 through 12 years. Thefour teachers who served as examiners were all graduatesof master's degree programs in developmental and remedialreading instruction. The test was a "live" administra-tion of one of the reading inventories by one teacher;the testing session was tape recorded. The retest wasa second teacher scoring the audio tape recording of thetest. The dependent variable was the agreement (or lackof agreement) in identifying a single reading instruc-tional level between test and retest. Results showedthat in 14 of 16 trials (85%) there was agreement betweenteachers using the ERI. In 5 of the 16 trials there wasperfect agreement between teachers on an instructionalreading level. None of the test-retest trails showed ateacher-teacher instructional level difference of morethan one grade level. Trials of the CRI showed teacheragreement on instructional level in 10 of 16 trials (67%).Only one test-retest instance showed a between-teacherinstructional level disagreement of more than one gradelevel. These results provide a strong indication thatthe CRI and ERI produce reliable estimates of a stu-dent's reading instructional level.

PLACEMENT, CRITERIA, AND READING LEVELS

Anderson, Betty, and Rosie Webb Joels. "Informal Reading Inven-torisa," Reading Improvement, 23 (Winter, 1986), 299-302.

Reports a study composed of 136 students in grades twothrough five to establish the oral reading accuracy leveland to determine whether repetitions should be counted asoral reading errors. Results indicated that oral accuracylevels of 90% for first-grade passages and 94% for passagestwo through five were appropriate. Inconsistencies andinconclusive findings on scoring of repr,titions led theauthors to support the recommendation of ythers to excluderepetitions until further evidence becomes available.

Homan, Susan P., and Janell P. nesius. "A Re-examination ofthe IRI: Word Recognition CrAteria," Reading Horizons, 26(Fall, 1985), 54-61.

Investigates which word recognition criterion is mostappropriate for determining the instructional readinglevel for elementary students. One hundred and fiftystudents in Hillsborough County, Florida were partici-pants in this study. The researchers used a modifiedversion of Powell's (1970) method. Initial results con-firmed previous research findings by Killgallon (cited inBeldin, 1970) strongly indicating that the word recogni-tion criterion for the instructional level should be setat about 95% for students reading at grade levels onethrough six. However, a more in depth analysis of thedata revealed that word recognition criteria may bevariable depending on a number of factors which arelisted in this study. The investigators contend thatIRIs need to be standardized so criteria can be set tocoincide with each particular passage, thereby attempt-ing to control the many variables affecting studentperformance.

Newcomer, Phyllis L. "A Comparison of Two Published ReadingInventories," Remedial and Special Education, 6 (January-February, 1985), 31-36.

Examines the extent to which two commercial IRIs iden-tify the same instructional level when administered to50 children in grades one through seven. The resultsdemonstrate a significant lack of congruence betweenthe instruments, particularly in the intermediate grades.In more than 50% of the cases, the IRIs identified

13

14

different instructional levels. The application of theFry Readability Formula to paragraphs from both inventor-ies also shows little agreement in grade level designations.Recommendations that pertain to the possible improvement ofIRIs include szandardization strategies and reliability data.

Lombardo, Marie. "The Effectiveness of an Informal Reading Inven-tory in Identifying the Functional Reading Levels of BilingualStudents." Bilingual Education Paper Series, Vol. 2, No. 10,1979. Microfiche ED 258 448.

Reports a study undertaken to (1) examine the developmentand construction of a Group Informal Reading Inventory topredict the reading comprehensive levels (independent,instructional, and frustration) of junior high schoolbilingual students for the purpose of reading instructionand (2) validate the inventory through a three-way corre-lational study comparing the comprehension results withthose of a cloze test, a standardized test, and a ques-tionnaire by which teachers estimate students' readinglevels. The study involved 50 bilingual students of pre-dominantly English- and Spanish-speaking, low- andmiddle-income backgrounds in an urban school. All hadbeen instructed in Spanish until they gained English lan-guage proficiency; then they were mainstreamed into theEnglish curriculum. It was discovered that the studentswere all functioning far below their developmental gradelevels and their assigned present grade levels, andnative language grades were lower than those in English.It is recommended that (1) a decision be made for eachindividual student as to whether he/she should be taughtin two languages or, if his/her native language skillsare insufficient to transfer to English as a second lan-guage, whether he/she should be taught in English; (2)testing for reading and content areas be administeredregularly to monitor progress; and (3) there be carefulregulation of the timing, techniques, content, materials,and evaluation of bilingual instruction.

Nolen, Patricia A., and Tony C. M. Lam. "A Comparison of IRI andDurrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty Reading Levels in clini-cal Assessment," 1981. Microfiche ED 253 843.

Compares the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty andIRI independent and instructional level designations for15 children, ages 9 to 11 years, who had been referred

14

15

to a diagnostic clinic for reading assessment. The chil-dren's reading performance was first scored according toprocedures outlined in the Durrell Analysis manual. Asecond scoring was made according to recommendations foradministering informal reading inventories given byJohnson and Kress. Results suggested that the proceduresyield significantly different overall grade level desig-nations. Further analysis revealed that (1) the averageindependent level established by the Durrell Analysisprocedure was significantly higher than that obtained bythe IRI procedure, and (2) the instructional level meanwas significantly higher than the independent level meanonly when the IRI procedure was used.

Cardarelli, Aldo F. "The Influence of Reinspection on Students'IRI Results," The Reading Teacher, 41 (March, 1988), 664-667.

Reports a study with 47 fourth-grade students who silentlyread passages from the Analytical Reading Inventory. Oncethe student's frustration level was reached with nopassage reinspection, the same level was given on anotherform with reinspection allowed. Over half of the studentsmade gains sufficient to change from the frustration levelto the instructional level. The author notes the differ-ent cognitive demands in the recall and reinspectionapproaches to assessing comprehension and believes rein -spection provides the most useful results.

Brecht, Richard D. "Testing Format and Instructional Level withthe Informal Reading Inventory," The Reading Teacher, 31(October, 1977), 57-59.

Results from previous research suggest that achievementlevels based upon errors made during oral reading fromsight will not be representative of actual reading ability.Results differ depending on whether the test passage isread silently or orally first. A study in a rural schoolin Southern Illinois was conducted using 28 third graders,26 fourth graders, and 16 fifth graders to examine theeffects of oral rereading on estimates of instructionallevel. Two independently developed, non-published IRIswere administered to each subject. Results indicate thatto get the best measure of a child's instructional readinglevel, the student should be allowed to read the selectionsilently first.

15

16

L,.

Smith, Lynn C., Lawrence L. Smith, Gay Gruetzemacher, and JaneAnderson. "Locating the Recreational Level of ElementaryGrade Students," November, 1982. Microfiche ED 225 106.

Compares studeats' recreational reading levels to theirindependent, instructional, and frustrational levelsdetermined with an IRI. Subjects, 20 second-grade and 20fifth-grade students, were administered the Basic ReadingInventory. In addition, the school's librarian recordedtitles of four books chosen by each student within a 2-month period. These books were freely selected and thechildren did not know that their choices were being moni-tored. After the books had been returned to the library,researchers estimated the books' difficulty level withthe Fry Readability Graph. Results showed that second-grade students selected books for recreational readingwithin their independent reading level 42% of the time,within their instructional level 25% of the time, and attheir frustration level 33% of the time. Fifth-grade stu-dents, on the other hand, selected books for recreationalreading within their independent reading level 42% of thetime, within their instructional level 32% of the time,and at their frustration levell 26% of the time. Whenthey selected books to read for pleasure, both second-and fifth-grade students chose books above their inde-pendent level 58% of the time. These results indicatethat it is inappropriate for educators to prescribe thelevel of books read for pleasure based on an IRI.

Shipman, Dorothy A., and Edna W. Warncke. "Informal Assessmentin Reading: Group vs. Individual," September, 1984. Micro-fiche ED 249 482.

Reports a study conducted to determine whether informalgroup assessment instruments could be used effectivelyto provide the same type of reading achievement informa-tion as that secured from informal individual instruments.The researchers developed group instruments comparableto individual instruments, including a group reading in-ventory for grades 1 through 12, cloze inventory for thesame grades, specific comprehension skills assessments,and specific study skills assessments. The Group ReadingInventory (GRI) and a published IRI were administeredto 312 students who were er3ected to have reading levelsranging from the preprimer level to grade 12. The re-sults of the two inventories were then analyzed todetermine the amount of correlation between the func-tional reading levels of each. There was a statisticallysignificant correlation between the scores on the GRI andon the IRI.

16

17

Findings suggest that since both kinds of inventoriestend to diagnose comparable functional reading levels,the GRI is a valid alternative to the IRI for assessingreading levels, and at a considerable saving of classtime.

Eldredge, J. Lloyd, and Dennie Butterfield. "Sacred Cows MakeGood Hamburger: A Report on a Reading Research Project Titled'Testing the Sacred Cows in Reading'," 1984. Microfiche ED255 861.

Investigates the following "sacred cows" in reading: (1)the use of IRIs for grouping students in reading instruc-tion, (2) the homogeneous grouping practices currentlyused in most classrooms in the United States, (3) the useof readability formulas to identify "appropriate" readingmaterials for students to read, (4) the idea that studentscan be taught to read effectively only via basal readers,and (5) the analytical phonics strategies used to teachstudents phonics skills. The five experimental programsinvolved in the study were assigned to second-grade class-rooms in four Utah school districts. Students in bothexperimental and control classrooms were administered pre-and post-tests in reading, vocabulary, reading comprehen-sion, phonics, self-image, and interest in reading.Reading vocabulary and reading comprehension were testedusing the Gates -MacGinitie Reading Test, Level B, Form 1.The findings suggest involving students in a lot ofnoninstructional reading and using: (1) an analytical/synthetic decoding approach; (2) phonics to identify wordsnot recognizable on sight; (3) heterogeneous grouping; and(4) children's literature rather than basal readers.Numerous tables of findings and seven appendices containmaterial relevant to the study.

Forell, Elizabeth R. "The Case for Conservative Reader Placement,"The Reading Teacher, 38 (May, 1985), 857-862.

Reports a study of all students (91) who entered thethird grade of EL midwestern school for a five-yearperiod. Students were placed in basal materials thatwere comfortable (not more than 5% meaning-changingerrors and at least 75% comprehension). Using thiscriteria for placement, half of the students were placedin grade-level materials; the others needed readers oneto three years below grade level. Reading achievement

17

18

on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills showed substantialimprovement for the low group: from the 23rd percen-tile in beginning third grade to the 48th percentile inbeginning seventh grade. The author argues for placingstudents in books that are not too hard.

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

Duffelmeyer, Frederick A., Jennifer Long, and Anne Kruse. "ThePassage Independence of IRI Comprehension Question Categories:Evidence of Non-Uniformity," Reading Improvement, 24 (Summer,1987), 101-106.

Investigates the passage independence of comprehensionquestions across subskill categories on two IRIs: theBasic Reading Inventory (Form A) and the InformalReading Inventory (Form B). Sixty elementary schoolstudents from a rural midwestern school district, teneach from grades one through six, were administered thequestions from the Basic Reading Inventory at theirrespective grade levels under a passage-absent condi-tion. A second group of sixty elementary schoolstudents from a separate midwestern school district wasadministered the questions from the IRI under the sameconditions. Percent correct scores were calculated foreach Subskill category on the two inventories. A lackof uniformity across subskill categories was revealedfor both inventories. These results were interpretedas providing sufficient support for Schell and Hanna'scaveat relative to the practice of analyzing a student'sstrengths and weaknesses in comprehension subskills.

Marr, Mary Beth, and Kathleen R. Lyon. "Passage Independency andQuestion Characteristics: An Analysis of Three Informal ReadingInventories," Reading Psychology, 2 (Spring, 1981), 97-102.

Examines three IRIs to identify passage independent testquestions, questions which could be answered correctlywithout reading the corresponding passages. Fourth-gradestudents of good and poor reading ability were administeredthe test questions orally without access to the passage.The percentage of questions answered correctly was calcu-lated for each test. An analysis of variance procedurerevealed that the Classroom Reading Inventory was the mostpassage independent followed by the Analytical ReadingInventory and Ginn 720 inventory, respectively. However,the two reader groups did not differ significantly in

18

19

their performance across the three tests. An analysis ofstudents' responses to the questions revealed that threequestion categories in particular tended to be passageindependent in nature. These categories were: (a) generalinformation, (b) vocabulary meaning, and (c) affective.The investigation also examined the literal and inferentialcharacteristics of the test questions. Suggestions weremade for evaluating the validity of reading comprehensionquestions.

Duffelmeyer, Frederick A., and Barbara Blakely Duffelmeyer. "MainIdea Questions on Informal Reading Inventories," Ths ReadingTeacher, 41 (November, 1987), 162-166.

Studies one of the subskill categories included in theIRI, the main idea. After analyzing three commercialIRIs, the investigators concluded that the label is fre-quently a misnomer. Many main idea questions do notmeasure what they purport to measure. Rather, they relateto topic. The investigators stress the differences betweentopic and main idea. They fear this may spill over intolater reading with students having great difficulties inunderstanding and assessing main ideas. Therefore, it isimperative that teachers analyze main idea questions on IRisto determine the skills actually being measured.

Davis, Carol. "The Effectiveness of Informal Assessment QuestionsConstructed by Secondary Teachers," in P. David Pearson andJane Hansen (Eds.), Reading: Disciplined Inquiry in Processand Practice. Clemson, South Carolina: National Reading Con-ference, 1978, 13-15.

Examines the effectiveness of informal assessment ques-tions constructed by secondary teachers. The teacher-constructed questions seemed to be at the appropriatelevel of difficulty, but they often did not discriminatebetween high and low scoring subjects. The author con-tends that secondary teachers are frequently encouragedto develop their own informal assessment instrumentsdespite the fact that they may not be adequately preparedfor this task. The results of this study seem to suggesta need to reconsider the unqualified encouragement ofteacher-constructed secondary inventories.

Peterson, Joe, M. Jean Greenlaw, and Robert J. Tierney. "AssessingInstructional Placement with the I.R.I.: The Effectiveness ofComprehension Questions," The Journal of Educational Research,71 (May, June, 1978), 247-250.

19

20

Investigates whether different sets of questions generatedfor an IRI would yield different instructional placementof students. Using identical passages, trained educatorsfollowing published criteria wrote questions for an IRI.Three question sets were selected and all were adminis-tered to 57 elementary students in grades two throughfive. The order of administration of the three sets wasrotated to counter a learning effect. Correlationsbetween the instructional placements indicated by thequestion sets did not approach the reliability coefficientnecessary for interpretation of individual results. Lackof agreement across the three sets of questions raisedthe question of dependability of placement of students onthe basis of their ability to respond to questions derivedfrom the question-generating guidelines under consideration.

Joels, Rosie Webb, and Betty Anderson. "Informal Reading InventoryComprehension Questions: Are Classification Schemes Valid?"Reading Horizons, 28 (Spring, 1988), 178-183.

Presents a study which examines 136 elementary schoolstudents' performance on the JAT (Joels, Anderson, andThompson) Reading Inventory, noting variable studentperformance on the different question types. Reportsthat the discriminant validity of tne JAT as a diagnosticinstrument appears to be established.

Fowler, Elaine D., and Walter J. Lamberg. "Effect of Pre-Questionson Oral Reading by Elementary Students," Reading Improvement,16 (Spring, 1979), 71-74.

Seeks to determine if questions asked prior to readingor questions asked before and after reading would improveperformance on word recognition and comprehension. Sub-jects were elementary school students ranging from firstto fifth grade. One group of students tested in the Fall,1977 and the other in the Spring, 1978, on IRIs. Resultsfrom the IRI on the lowest instructional level and thefrustrational level were used as the measure of subjects'performance on the post-question task For the pre-question task, additional passages at the students' in-structional and frustrational levels were selected. Nosignificant differences were found in favor of the pre-question task on word recognition or comprehension.

Render, Joseph P., and Herbert Rubenstein. "Recall Versus Rein-spection in IRI Comprehension Tests," The Reading Teacher, 30(April, 1977), 776-779.

Maintains that recall-type questions may merely test anindividual's ability to remember what has been read ratherthan to understand it. Describes a study of 32 fourthgraders, 16 of high reading ability and 16 of low readingability, which attempted to compare an IRI comprehensioncheck by means of recall questions to a check by means ofreinspection. The study was designed to determine: (1)the difference, if any, between recall scores and rein-spection scores; and (2) whether memory for sentencecontent is an intrinsic part of reading comprehension.To test the hypotheses, subjects read two IRI passagesat each level of difficulty; Jomprehension was checkedby means of recall for one passage and by reinspectionfor the other. Findings include that: (1) reinspectionscores were significantly higher than recall scores forboth groups; and (2) the effect of reinspection was sub-stantially the same for both ability groups. Concludesthat readers should be allowed to reinspect IRI passagesbefore answering comprehension questions.

COMPARISONS WITH STANDARDIZED TESTS

Smith, William Earl, and Michael D. Beck. "Determining Instruc-tional Reading Level with 1978 Metropolitan Achievement Tests,"The Reading Teacher, 34 (December, 1980), 313-319.

Compares the reading comprehension test of the Metropoli-tan Achievement Tests (MAT), one of three placement testsfor a basal series, cloze tests, and two standardized IPIsto determine instructional reading level (IRL). The sub-jects were 700 elementary school students; eleven first-grade classes and seven classes each for second, third,fourth, and sixth grades. The data indicated a strong re-lationship among the results of the four procedures used toestimate IRL. The MAT results compared most closely withthe other techniques and appear to provide an accurateestimate of a student's IRL.

Bristow, Page Simpson, John J. Pikulski, and Peter L. Pelosi. "AComparison of Five Estimates of Reading Instructional Level,"The Reading Teacher, 37 (December, 1983), 273-279.

Reports that reading instructional level scores of ateacher-constructed IRI, the commercially-prepared BasicReading Inventory, the Metropolitan Achievement Test, andthe students' actual level of placement in books areroughly comparable, but that the Wide Range Achievement

23.

22

Test reading subtest places students much higher. Thesample used for this study was 72 students, 24 each fromgrades two, four, and six. This study indicated thateach of the four tests may be useful for differentpurposes. A table presents the range of agreement amongthe various measures for instructional level placement.

Blanchard, Jay S., Paul Borthwick, Jr., and Ann Hall. "DeterminingInstructional Reading Level: Standardized Multiple Choice VersusIRI Probed Recall Questions," Journal of Reading, 26 (May, 1983),684-689.

Compares results of standardized reading tests with IRIsto determine whether teachers should favor one scoreover another as an indicator of instructional readinglevel. Subjects were 60 students each from third andfifth grade and 45 students from seventh grade from foursuburban/rural racially-mixed schools. This study didnot support the assumption that standardized scores runtoo high or that reading instruction should begin at alower level.

Oliver, Jo Ellen, and Richard D. Arnold. "Comparing a StandardizedTest, an Informal Inventory and Teacher Judgment on Third GradeReading," Reading Improvement, 15 (Spring, 1978), 56-59.

Compares results of a standardized test, teacher judg-ments, and an IRI, using third-grade subjects. Fifteenboys and fifteen girls were given the Iowa Test of BasicSkills and the Goudy Informal Reading Inventory. With-out knowledge of scores, teachers estimated instructionalreading levels. Pearson Product Moment Correlation,Analysis c.f Variance, and Paired t-tests were used. Meansof teacher judgment (2.9) and standardized test scores(2.9) were not significantly different. Means of IRIplacements (2.4) were significantly different fromteacher judgment means and standardized test scores means(p < .01). The highest correlations were between teacherjudgment and the IRI placements.

Manning, Maryann, Gary Manning, and Caroline B. Cody. "A ComparisonAmong Measures of Reading Achievement With Low Income Black ThirdGrade Students," March/April, 1985. Microfiche ED 261 074.

Compares different types of reading achievement measuresfor 58 low-income, urban black third graders. Two formaltests were administered: the norm-referenced CaliforniaAchievement Tests (CAT), and the criterion-referenced

22

23

Alabama Basic Competency Test (ABCT). Informal measuresincluded the Houghton-Mifflin Informal Reading Inventory(HMIR2), the Classroom Reading Inventory (CRI), a clozeprocedure, and teacher judgment (as indicated by thebasal reader assignment for each student). Results indi-cate that correlations among all of the measures weremoderate to high. The formal tests, particularly the CAT,tended to produce lower scores than the informal measures.In spite of high correlations, the CAT and ABCT resultsrevealed very different distributions of student ability.With the ABCT, more students showed average and aboveaverage performance. Examination of teachers' judgmentsregarding reading book placement, as compared to test re-sults, indicated that teachers underestimated students'reading abilitY and placements did not reflect test re-sults. HMIRI results also suggested that a number ofstudents could have been assigned to a higher-level read-ing book. It was suggested that informal measures beused for book placement and that multiple measures ofreading achievement be used in decision making.

Manning, Gary, Maryann Manning, and Roberta Long "First GradeReading Assessrent: Teacher Opinions, Standardized ReadingTests, and Informal Reading Inventories," November, 1985.244 .o4.iche ED 265 204.

Investigates the relationship between and among theresults of three types of reading assessment in thefirst grade: a standardized reading test (the StanfordAchievement Tests); an IRI (the Classroom Reading Inven-tory); and teacher judgment of student rank in readingachievement. The study included 165 first-gradestudents with a mean age of 84.6 months. The Pearsonproduct-moment correlation was used to assess Ale rela-tionship between the scores of the IRI word recognitionand comprehension tests and the reading portions of thestandardized achievement tests. The Spearman-Rho cor-relation coefficient was used to assess the relationshipbetween teacher judgment and the students' performanceon the IRI and.the standardized reading test. A statis-tically significant positive correlation was indicatedbetween the IRI and standardized test scores. There werealso positive correlations between achievement variablesand the word recognition and also the comprehension scoresof the Classroom Reading Inventory. Teache: opinioncorrelated with all subtests of the standardized test andthe word recognition portion of the IRI. The achievementof all combined classrooms and most individual classroomswas average or above, based on national norms.

23

Coleman, Margaret, and William R. Harmer. "A Comparison of Standard-ized Reading Tests and Informal Placement Procedm.es," Journalof Learning Disabilities, 15 (August/September, 1982), 396-398.

Compares selected subtests of commonly used standardizedreading tests and informal placement procedures with 32primary (grades 1-3) students in a summer reading program.Tests chosen for comparison were the Wide Range Achieve-ment Test (WRAT), Diagnostic Reading Scales (Spache), andthe Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Form A. The informalplacement was the tutor-placed instructional level. Re-sults indicate that the selected reading measures yieldsignificantly different results. The independent levelof the Spache was the highest, followed by the WRAT, theSpache instructional level, both subtests of the Woodcock,and tutor placement.

Amoriell, William J. "Use of Standardized Reading Tests as neasurc?of Reading Achievement,r. 1981. Microfiche ED 265 508.

Reports a study that provides insight into the con-sistency of reading achievement scores from four stan-dardized tests. Several sets of data were compared toassess the accuracy of grade equivalents or instruc-tional reading levels obtained on standardized tests.Each test was randomly assigned for administration to23 third graders in a group setting during one of fourconsecutive mornings. The four tests were: (1) theIowu Tests of 5asic Skills (Form 4); (2) StanfordAchievement Test (Primary Level III--Form A); (3) Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (Level C--Form 2); and (4)Metropolian Achievement Test (Elementary--Form F--Metro).The resulting grade levels revealed significantdiscrepancies across the different tests. Seventy percentof the children received grade scores ranging over morethan one year. A comparison of the instructional readinglevels obtained from the Metro with those obtained from asubsequently administered IRI indicated that more than 50%of instructional reading levels from the Metro varied asmuch as two to five reader levels from those of the IRI.The results did not support the use of standardized testscores as adequate measures of reading achievement or asa substitute for individually administered IRIs.

USE, READABILZTY, AVD OTHER FACTORS

Harris, Larry A., and Rosary H. Lalik. "Teacher's Use of InformalReading Inventories: An Example of School Constraints," TheReading Teacher, 40 (March, 1987), 624-630.

24

25

Investigates circumstances affecting the success of bothIRIs and diagnostic teaching. Two conclusions werereached. First, many reading authorities view the class-room teacher's use of IRIs as a good practice. Second,in order to promote effective use of IRIs, teachers needto be better trained in the use and application of IRIs.A survey conducted with 500 Virginia elementary teachersyielded a 50% return rate. Results of the surveyrevealed that classroom constraints and administrativeprocedures for student placement affect diagnostic teach-ing. Also, as expected, teacher training and knowledgeof IRIs affect diagnostic teaching. The survey resultsand teacher comments are included. The authors concludedthat education is necessary for teachers to effectivelyuse IRIs. The investigators recommend that universityfaculty need to collaborate with teachers and administra-tors in the use and application of IRIs so that they canbe used most effectively.

Masztal, Nancy B., and Lawrence L. Smith. "Do Teachers ReallyAdminister IRIs?" Reading World, 24 (October, 1984), 80-83

Reports a study on the use of IRIs. A questionnairewas developed and sent to teachers in Florida, Illinois,Mississippi, and Tennessee to determine if teachersadminister IRIs in their classrooms. A total of 125teachers from five elementary schools responded. Resultsindicated that 54% of the ;:eachers actually administeredIRIs in the classrooms. The authors recommended thatteacher-education courses continue to include the valueo2 an IRI with emphasis on the interpretation and use ofinformation gleaned from the administration of the IRI.

Searls, Evelyn F. "What's the Value of an IRI? Is it Being Used?"Reading Horizons, 28 (Winter, 1988), 92-101.

Reports a summary of 343 professionals which indicatedthat 62% identified IRIs as the most frequent datasource for placement compared to basal placement tests,former basal book placements, and achievement tests.When responses were analyzed by classroom teachers andreading specialists, 61% of the teachers indicated lowuse (never or less than once a semester) of IRIs. Amongspecialists, over 50% indicated moderate or high use ofIRIs. Four tables contain the results of the study.

Brittain, Mary M., Shirley B. Merlin, Patricia Terrell, and Sue F.Rogers. "Informal Reading Assessment: Perceptions of In-flerviceand Pre-service Teachers," Journal of the Virginia CollegeReading Educators, 5 (Fall, 1984), 4-12.

25

26

Compares the results of a similar study (Merlin, 1983)with in-service teachers to a study involving 157pre-service students enrolled in undergraduate readingcourses. Among the results, presented in three tables,are: (1) both experienced and prospective teacherssxpressed a preference for individual inventories; (2)about half of each group used or expected to use pub-lished IRIs often or very often; and (3) comprehensionproblems were identified as the most common diagnosticuse of IRIs.

Bradley, John M. and Wilbur S. Ames. "The Influence of IntrabookReadability Variation on Oral Reading Performance," The Journalof Educational Research, 70 (November/December, 1976), 101-105.

Describes a study which explored the effect of intrabookreadability variation on the oral reading psrformance of51 intermediate-grade students. The results suggest thatthe instructional level yielded by a typical IRI dredictsa student's level of functioning for only a portion of abasal reader. Because of intrabook readability variation,it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whichportion of a book relates to IRI results.

Gerke, Ray. "Critique of Informal Reading Inventories: Can aValid Instructional Level be Obtained?" Journal of ReadingBehavior, 12 (Summer, 1980), 155-158.

Determines readability estimates of IRIs and one stan-dardized test containing graded reading passages. Mostof the IRIs examined included extractions from publisher'sbasal readers. Readability estimates revealed that thelevels reported for some IRI passages may be erroneous,although they generally progress in difficulty.

Gillis, M.K., and Mary W. Olson. "Informal Reading Inventoriesand Text Type/Structure," January/February, 1986. MicroficheED 276 971.

Studies seven IRIs, three at the elementary level andfour at the secondary level, to (1) discover what texttypes (narrative or expository) they used at each levelto measure student comprehension skills and determineinstructional levels and (2) identify the rhetoricalstructures used in expository passages. The 18 teacherswho rated the elementary passages and the 20 who ratedthe secondary ones had all previously administered IRIsand had studied the literature on text type and structure

26

and reading comprehension. Each teacher examined atleast four IRIs, classified each passage used in them asnarrative or expository, judged each narrative passageas well- or poorly-formed, and judged each expositorypassage according to rhetorical structures adapted fromB.J.F. Meyer (1975). The teachers found that all of thepreprimer and primer passages used on the IRIs werenarrative, while most of the other elementary passagesand most of the secondary passages were expository. Inaddition, they found that many of the narrative passageson the IRIs were not well-formed, and that approximatelyone-eighth of the elementary and one-fourth of the sec-ondary expository passages had no clear rhetoricalstructure. The findings suggest that the passages usedin IRIs might produce erratic comprehension scores. Inlight of these findings, five practical suggestions areoffered for teachers and diagnosticians who use thecurrently available commercial IRIs.

Leibert, Robert E. "Performance Profiles of ABE Students and Chil-dren on an Informal Reading Inventory," Reading Psychology, 4(April-June, 1983), 141-150.

Compares reading performance abilities for school-agechildren and adults attending ABE classes. Scores obtainedfor both groups on the Adult Informal Reading Test wereformed into distribution profiles for each tested variable.Differences between the two populations for oral readingaccuracy, comprehension, and rate of reading were identifiedfor the two populations. The profile notion was concludedto be a useful means for displaying the performance trendsof published IRIs.

Gonzales, Phillip C. and David Elijah. "Stability of ErrorPatterns on the Informal Reading Inventory," Reading Improve-ment, 15 (Winter, 1978), 279-288.

Investigates twenty-six, third-grade developmental readersas they read and reread extended oral passages at instruc-tional and frustration performance levels. Errors on thefour readings were analyzed using the B-S-R Error Analysissystem which classifies errors into 23 categories. Thedata were analyzed to determine type of error change re-sulting from rereading, consistency of pattern of repeatederror, and utilization of context clues in reading. Theprofile of reaaing behavior on the two instructional andtwo frustration level readings revealed a consistent

27

pattern of error production and context utilizationalthough words on which errors were made varied. Theresults suggest the employment of consistent word recog-nition strategies by third grade developmental readers.

Lipson, Marjorie Youmans, Carla H. Cox, Suzette Iwankowski, andMarianne Simon. "Exploration of the Interactive Nature ofReading: Using Commercial IRIs to Gain Insights," ReadingPsychology, 5 (1984), 209-218.

Uses case-study data from three young readers to investi-gate variability across IRIs. Results are discussed interms of the varying demands of text and task as well asthe idiosyncratic contributions of each individual to thereading act. The case studies reflect that reading abil-ity is not static, but rather encompasses a range of abil-ities and behaviors. Use of any :me commercial IRI forplacement purposes is seriously questioned; however,they can be used to gain insights into reading behavior.

Marzano, Robert J., Jean Larson, Geri Tish, and Sue Vodehnal."The Graded Word List is Not a Shortcut to an IRI," The ReadingTeacher, 31 (March, 1978), 647-651.

Contends that the Graded Word List: Quick Gauge of Read-ing Ability (GWL), developed by La Pray and Ross, is nota valid substitute for an IRI. The authors attempt toillustrate numerically the invalidity of using shortcuttechniques like the GWL to determine independent, instruc-tional, and frustration reading levels. The authorssuggest that the increased administration time for adminis-tering an IRI is justified.

Walker, Susan M., Ronald G. Noland, and Charles M. Greenshields."The Effect of High and Low Interest Content on InstructionalLevels in Informal Reading Inventories," Reading Improvement,16 (Winter, 1979), 297-300.

Studies whether there was a significant .4.ifference in theword recognition and comprehension instructional levelsof male and female students in the below average, average,and above average reading ability groups within the fifthand sixth year when presented with low and high interestcontent contained in IRIs. The fifth grade analysis ofvariance which examined the main effect and t'ne inter-actions between the four factors of sex, ability group,interest, and type of skill, found a significant differ-

29

ence in ability groups and type of skill at the .001level of significance. The analysis of variance for thefour factors in sixth grade yielded significant differ-ences in instructional levels of ability groups at the.001 level, in content interest at the .05 level, and intypes of skill at the .01 level. The interaction of sexand skill was significant at the .05 level. Other con-clusions: high interest content had greater effect onincreasing comprehension than on word recognition at bothgrade levels; high interest content increased instruc-tional levels of males more than of females at bothlevels; high interest content, while having a negligibleeffect on above average readers, had a greater effect onaverage and below average readers.

29

31

e

SECTION III: DESCRIPTIVE REPORTS

GENERAL USES

Blanchard, Jay, and Jerry Johns. "Informal Reading Inventories--ABroader View," Reading Psychology, 7 (1986), iii-vii.

Argues that IRIs can do much to strengthen classroomassessment and instruction if teachers are willing toadopt a broader, flexible view. In the past, someteachers have tied IRIs to rigid procedures and thameasurement of a few traits. This narrow perspectivediminishes the potential of IRIs to meet classroomassessment and instruction needs. A wider perspectivesuggests that IRIs can be considered assessment strate-gies that provide teachers with almost complete freedomto explore reading behaviors. Uses include: (1)assessing new students; (2) supporting intuitions; (3)practicing reading; and (4) evaluating special programs.

Bader, Lois A., and Katherine D. Wiesendanger. "Realizing thePotential of Informal Reading Inventories," Journal of Reading,32 (February, 1989), 402-408.

Argues that more emphasis needs to be given to using IRIsfor in-depth evaluation of reading behavior to gain in-sights into the reading process. The authors stress theimportance of teacher judgment and believe traditionalreliability data may not be one of the most appropriateways to judge IRIs. The word "estimate" is critical whendetermining reading levels and making judgments.

Johns, Jerry L. "Reading is Easy When Students are Placed Properlyin Books: Using Informal Reading Inventories," The ReadingInstruction Journal, 30 (Spring, 1987), 11-16.

Addresses the importance of proper placement of studentsin books to ensure effective reading instruction. Theuse of IRIs are one tool in the process to achieving thedesired result. However, studies conducted by Mastzaland Smith (1984) and Harris and Lalik (1983) concludethat although most teachers have sufficient knowledge touse IRIs, only 54 percent do so. One possible explana-tion is that the administering of IRIs requires teachersto spend individual time with each of their students.The author stresses that this time spent is invaluableto both teacher and student; therefore, teachers should

30

31

make the commitment to use IRIs. Further, although IRIshave been criticized in 4ome respects, they remain a use-ful tool for assessing reading. IRIs should be viewed asa means toward an end: helping teachers place studentsin appropriate reading materials to help promote successin reading.

Leibert, Robert E. "The IRI: Relating Test Performance to Instruc-tion - -A Concept," Reading Horizons, 22 (Winter, 1981), 110-115.

Describes a procedure that allows teachers to identify andorder the instructional needs of children through the useof an IRI. Test data are analyzed to show that levelsare determined by observing the balance between accuracyand comprehension. Test analysis proceeds from identify-ing instructional needs to the implementation of triallessons to verify procedures and strategies which assistthe reader in overcoming the problems observed.

Carnine, Linda. "Teaching Basic Reading Skills in SecondarySchools," 1980. Microfiche ED 265 630.

Presents diagnostic and prescriptive techniques thatwill enable teachers to enhance secondary school stu-dents' learning through reading in content areas.Section II reviews diagnostic procedures that allowteachers to match appropriate materials with students'entry vocabulary and comprehension. The Cloze procedureand the use of IRIs are covered.

Johns, Jerry L. "Fifteen Important Sources for Users of InformalReading Inventories," Reading World, 16 (March, 1977), 172-177.

Presents a brief annotated bibliography dealing withIRIs. The fifteen annotations contained in the bibliog-raphy were selected from over one hundred pertinent articlesand represent a good overview of articles on the development,use, current dilemmas, and future directions of IRIs.

ISSUES AND CRITERIA

Cadenhead, Kenneth. "Reading Level: A Metaphor That ShapesPractice," Phi Delta Happen, 68 (February, 1987), 436-441.

Questions the appropriateness of using reading levels.The lack of validity of grade-level scores and the baseson which various measurements were built are examples of

31

32

two areas in which criticism is directed at the claimsof precise measurement. Suggestions are offered forchange in the way one approaches the use of the conceptof reading level. For example, using children'sliterature in conjunction wf.th the basal program shouldencourage children to read materials at various levelsof difficulty.

Schell, Leo, M., and Gerald S. Hanna. "Can Informal Reading Inven-tories Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses in Comprehension Subskills?"The Reading Teacher, 35 (December, 1981), 263-268.

Argues that commercial IRIs fail to provide accurate,reliable, comparable scores on subskills of reaWng andcan not properly be used to assess students' specificstrengths and weaknesses in comprehension. IRIs failto: (1) demonstrate objective classification's of ques-tions; (2) provide and demonstrate comparable scoresacross subskill categories; (3) provide evidence ofuniform passage dependence and passage independence ofquestions across categories of comprehension; and (4)provide reliable subskill scales and evidence thereof.

Powell, William R. "The Emergent Reading Level: A New Concept,"November, 1982. Microfiche ED 233 334.

Argues that traditional reading placement tests, deter-mining the level at which students can read withoutteacher mediation, frequently lead to student under-placement. Diagnostic teaching practices, however, canbe used to determine students' emergent reading level,-the reading level that can be achieved through instruc-tion. After preteaching part of a lesson--providingmotivation, background, vocabulary assistance, andpurposes--the teacher has students read first silentlyand then orally. During the oral reading, the teacherrecords the number and kinds of reading miscues made andnotes student affect. By leading students through pro-gressively more difficult lessons, the teacher can deter-mine (1) at what levels the students can read comfortablywithout help, (2) when reading becomes so difficult thatthe experience is more harmful than helpful, and (3) whatrange of materials the students can handle effectively ina teacher-guided situation. Diagnostic testing, reflect-ing the original intent of diagnostic teaching, givesstudents the assistance and motivation needed to masterincreasingly cJmplex conceptual structures.

32

Lunn, Mary K., and Jerry L. Johns. "Informal Reading Inventories:Reappraising the Criteria for the Instructional Reading Level,"Reading Psychology, 4 (January-March, 1983), 57-64.

Summarizes a study (Rillgallon, 1942) that helped toestablish the word-recognition criteria for the instruc-tional reading lewd and examines Powell's (1970) critiqueof this study and subsequent research. Three concerns areraised about Powell's 1970 study: comprehension criteria,behavioral characteristics, and miscues counted.

Powell, William R. "Monitoring Reading Behavior: Criteria forPerformance," May, 1976. Microfiche ED 120 675.

Contends that the effective use of IRIs depends upon thecriteria used in determining the functional readinglevels and more specifically the word recognition cri-teria employed in describing acceptable limits of oralreading behavior. The author of this paper looks at thediverse sets of criteria commonly used, the problemsassociated with these standard approaches, and the twodifferent sets of criteria for word recognition errorratios for each condition under which the data wereobtained. A rationale for each of these sets of cri-teria is presented for each assessment condition as theyare developed within a partial theoretical framework.Emphasis is placed on clarifying the criteria problemsconnected with the IRI and the teaching and clinicalpractice which are affected by the evidence offered.

Powell, William R. "Measuring Reading Performance Informally,"May, 1978. Microfiche ED 155 589.

Proposes a differential set of IRI criteria for bothword recognition and comprehension scores for differentlevels and reading conditions. In initial evaluation,word recognition scores should reflect only errors ofinsertions, omissions, mispronunciations, substitutions,unknown words, and transpositions; symptomatic behaviorshould not be considered. After the student has read,comprehension questions should be asked on a literallevel, on implicit understanding, on vocabulary, and onelraluative skills; all should be wholly context dependent.Baseline criteria for determining unsatisfactory readingshould be established in comprehension, word recognition,and symptomatic behavior; comprehension is the most signi-ficant factor in determining placement. The initial task

of the IRI is to place the student at his/her reading level.This decision i$ first made on the basis of quantitativedata. Then an error analysis gives qualitative information.Placement precedes analysis, but both are necessary foreffective reading diagnosis and placement.

Vaughan, Joseph L., Jr., and Paula J. Gaus. "Secondary Reading Inven-tory: A Modest Proposal," Journal of Reading, 21 (May, 1978),716-720.

Proposes a viable alternative to the traditional IRIformat designed specifically to yield information aboutadolescent readers. A general framework for a secondaryreading inventory (SRI) is provided which incorporates anassessment of seven aspects of the adolescent reader'sbehavior. Areas of assessment include comprehension ofvarying types of material, knowledge of vocabulary andcontent area concepts, and critical analysis skills. Thesignificance of interest level as a factor in the adoles-cent's reading performance is emphasized and reflected inthe construction of the SRI. The authors provide thereading specialist with specific suggestions to aid inthe construction and administration of ar, SRI.

Ackerson, Gary E., John M. Bradley, and John Luiten. "A Procedureto Estimate the Prcbability of Error When Using Reading PlacementTests," Reading World, 18 (December, 1978), 186-193.

Delineates a procedure which may be employed to predictthe amount and type of placement error present in acriterion-referenced reading placement test of a multiplechoice format. The two factors that were found to relateto placement errors of this type of test were test lengthand the performance level of mastery. The authors con-clude that test construction and selection must be improvedin order to facilitate the reduction of total test errorprobability.

Warren, Thomas S. "Informal Reading Inventories--A New Format,"November, 1985. Microfiche ED 269 740.

Identifies two significant weaknesses in IRIs developedby the teacher: (1) passages selected randomly fromthe graded basal readers that may or may not be on thelevel suggested by a publisher, and (2) the types ofquestions written for them, usually at the memory levelof cognition. Published inventories also have theirweaknesses, such as the discrepancy between the grade

34

levels assigned to the reading selections by the pub-lishers and actual readability levels. Another question-able feature of published inventories is the procedureused for their administration, with students directedto read one selection silently and a different oneorally. Because the task of developing a good informalinventory is so complicated, teachers, if they must con-struct their own, should select several random passages,identify four selections for each grade level from onethrough ten, and use a modified version of the Fry Read-ability Graph--extended to determine the difficultylevels of the paragraphs chosen. Introducing teachersto a new format for published inventories is also helpful.Among its new features would be (1) a complete step-by°step procedure for administration, (2) four forms at eachgrade level, and (3) a readability level for each of thefour selections for every grade that is close to thebe7inning of the grade level for which it is written.

Anderson, William W. "Informal Reading Inventories: Commercialor Conventional?" Reading World, 17 (October, 1977), 64-68.

Discuss two types of IRIs. Commercial IRIs are thosewhich are professionally prepared and packaged. Con-ventional IRIs are those locally prepared and based onpotential reading materials. The four purposes of IRIsseem to be achieved in both types of inventories. Con-trary to popular notion, the author contends that awisely-selected commercial IRI is prelerable. Andersonnotes that conventional IRIs are not practical in theirconstruction and are not advantageous when more than onebasal is used. The conventional weaknesses of IRIs liein a lack of precision at primary levels, reliability,validity. These weaknesses, the author indicates, arealso existent in conventional IRIs. The commercialIRI is advantageous in that it is well-organized, neatlypackaged, and easy to use. Comprehension questions havebeen conveniently organized to aid diagnosis. Some fieldtesting has been done. Previous exposure to the passagesis less likely. Other practical advantages are listed.Although the author suggests that commercial IRIs aremore appropriate than the conlftntional type, he would notvitiate the value of IRI construction for teacher-educa-tion students. Analyzing commercial IRIs and developingexpertise in administration is recommended.

Schell, Leo M. "The Validity of the Potential Level Via ListeningComprehension: A Cautionary Note,n Reading Psychology, 3 (July-September, 1982), 271-276.

Examines historical background and relevant research todetermine whether the commonly recommended procedure ofdetermining the reading potential level via listeningcomprehension is valid in the primary grades. No supportwas found for the unstated assumptions necessary for thisprocedure's validity. Three major studies conclusivelyrevealed that use of this procedure to identify childrenfor remedial instruction would drastically over-refer andwould include vast numbers of primary grade children pro-gressing normally in learning to read. Based on thisevidence, it was concluded that listening comprehensiondefinitely not be used to determine the readingpotential level in grades one through three.

Cavett, Dorcas C. "Use Ratio for Computing Informal Reading Tests,"March, 1982. Microfiche ED 216 340.

Notes that ratios can be used to great advantage inscoring informal reading tests, such as the clozeprocedure ahd the IRI. The paper explains the pro-cedures for calculating cross-ratio and percentageswhen computing scores for informal reading assessment.Examples are provided for using ratios to determinescores for Powell's Scale for Word Recognition andComprehension, Betts' Scale for Word Recognition andComprehension, and cloze testing.

MISCUE ANALYSIS

Leu, Donald J., Jr. "Oral Reading Error Analyses: A CriticalReview of Research and Application," Reading Research Quarterly,17 (Spring, 1982), 420-437.

Argues that oral reading error analysis contains thepotential for generating important clues to understandingthe reading process. In a historical overview of thisinvestigative approach, three problems that plagued earlyoral reading error studies are evident: (1) the lack ofa clearly articulated theoretical framework, (2) an in-adequate sensitivity to important methodological issues,and (3) a failure to adequately test the major assumptionsinvolved in this approach. The overview suggests thatcurrent oral reading error studies have overcome thefirst problem but not the second and third. Furthermore,methodological problems contribute significantly to theinconsistent results typically found among oral readingerror studies. Finally, there are several criticalassumptions that have been ignored by reading error

36

el 7

}..0Yr,

researchers. Until the methodological problems are over-come and until the assumptions are validated, the resultsfrom oral reading error analysis cannot be used confi-dently in order to make strong claims about either thenature of the reading process or the most appropriateinstructional procedures for students.

Pflaum, Susanna W. "Diagnosis of Oral Reading," The Reading Teacher,33 (December, 1979), 278-284.

Proposes a new IRI scoring system for achieving reli-ability. The first step involves the recording andscoring of errors; the second involves coding theerrors. Details of the system that achieve 83 to 100%coder reliability are given in the article.

Hoffman, James V. "Weighting Miscues in Informal Inventories: APrecautionary Note," Reading Horizons, 20 (Winter, 1980), 135-139.

Cautions that weighting errors on an oral reading testwith miscue analysis procedures can lead to inappropriateindependent reading-level placement. Contends that qual-itative techniques of assessment such as miscue analysisare a far richer source of information for the discerningteacher than simple error counts, thus revealing ways inwhich instruction might be adapted to meet specific rtudentneeds.

Smith, Laura, and Constanre Weaver. "A Psycholinguistic Look at theInformal Rending Inventory Part I: Looking at the Quality ofReaders' Miscues: A Rationale and an Easy Method," ReadingHorizons, 19 (Fall, 1978), 12-22.

Encourages IRI users to conduct a qualitative rather thana quantitative analysis of readers' miscues. Reading formeaning is emphasized as is the effectiveness of teachingword analysis skills through the use of context. Thearticle includes a simplified version of Goodman and Burke'sprocedure for analyzing a reader's miscues. Guidelines forobtaining and analyzing a reading sample are offered.

Weaver, Constance, and Laura Smith. "A Psycholinguistic Look at theInformal Reading Inventory Part II: Inappropriate Inferences froman Informal Reading Inventory," Reading Horizons, 19 (Winter,1979), 103-111.

Advises teachers to regard tests that measure a reader'srecognition of words in isolation with caution since such

27

38

tests commonly underestimate the reader's ability to pro-cess contextual material. Tt-tk authors suggest that theuse of a simplified version o- Goodman and Burke's miscueanalysis may be preferable to the use of most availableIRIs. An advantage of the miscue analysis procedure liesin its applicability to instructional planning. Theimportance of evaluating the reader's strengths as wellas weaknesses is emphasized.

Scales, Alice M. "The Informal Reading Assessment Inventory,"1980. Microfiche ED 273 922.

Proposes a strategy for merging the IRI and RMI. IRIstest comprehension through questions only, while theReading Miscue Inventory (RMI) is too cumbersome for theaverage classroom instructor to administer. Since bothmeasures offer instructors ways of collecting data, theymay efitectively be merged into an Informal Reading Assess-ment Inventory (IRAI), bringing together processes fromboth inventories. The oral reading component of theIRAI may be used to check learners' reading behaviors,such as recall of material via retelling, language usage,and recoding. The silent reading component allowslearners the private opportunity to interact with writtenmaterial during an uninterrupted period of time and topresent understanding of the material through predeter-mined criteria in a predetermined manner. The followingguidelines are suggested for preparing and administeringthe IRAI: (1) select several types of materials for oralreading, long enough to elicit at least 25 oral miscues;(2) compute the readability of the selections using atleast two formulas; (3) devise criteria for evaluation;(4) prepare a script for miscue coding; (5) have acassette tape player available; (6) establish rapportwith the learner; (7) have the learner read an entireselection aloud, while the examiner codes miscues; (8)have the learner respond to comprehension criteria; and(9) administer the silent reading comprehension measureusing selections of 450 to 500 words.

Wangberg, Elaine G. "Using Machine Theory to Analyze Oral ReadingInventory Results," The Michigan Reading Journal, 12 (Fall, 1978),73-75.

Adapts miscue theory as outlined by Goodman and Burke tothe simpler format of the oral reading inventory. Guide-lines for using miscue analysis and a retelling methodwith an oral reading inventory are offered.

38

3 9

40611Cli!..

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

LaSasso, Carol, and Nancy Swaikc. "Considerations in Selecting andUsing Commercially Prepared Informal Reading Inventories withDeaf Students," American Annals of the Deaf, 128 (August, 1983),449-452.

Offers guidelines for the selection and use of commer-cially prepared IRIs with deaf students. Modificationsfor deaf students pertain to: selection of the passageto begin testing, the criteria for oral and silent readinglevels, and procedures for estimating students1 readingpotential levels.

Helfeldt, John P., and William A. Henk. "Administering A Group Read-ing Inventory: An Initiative In Improving Reading Instruction,"Journal of Correctional Educatiyn, 34 (eptember, 1983), 76-79.

Presents background information for using group IRIS incorrectional facilities and offers guidelines for con-struction, administration, and interpretation. A samplepassage, questions, and scheme for administering the IRIin three testing sessions are included.

Lane, Martha A. "Handbook for Volunteer Reading Aides," 1984.Microfiche ED 256 900.

Presents a guide designed to assist volunteer tutorsparticipating in an adult literacy program. Appendixesto the handbook contain an informal reading inventory, areading placement test, job descriptions for a reading.center coordinator and a volunteer reading aide, sampleinstructional materials, a list of study techniques, anda selected bibliography.

Armstrong, Audrey A., and Sally P. Hunt. "VITAL Guidelines: TutorTraining for an Adult Literacy Program," 1982. Microfiche ED244 104.

rs a guide designed as a training tool for volunteersk....rticipating in the Volunteers in Tutoring Adult Learners(VITAL) program. VITAL is an adult literacy program thatis based on active cooperation between program trainersand volnnteer tutors. Various instructional resources areprovided in the guide. Appended to the guide are an in-formal reading inventory, a general educational development(GED) fact sheet, a confidential report and learner profilereport form, a workshop agenda, and a VITAL tutor job des-ignation.

39