Examining the Relationship between a Universal Screening Measure and a State Reading Assessment

Autor/in	Smith, Karen G.
Titel	Examining the Relationship between a Universal Screening Measure and a State Reading Assessment
Quelle	(2019), (157 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit Ed.D. Dissertation, The University of Maine
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
ISBN	979-8-2098-0387-4
Schlagwörter	Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Reading Comprehension; Middle School Students; Grade 6; Grade 7; Grade 8; Student Evaluation; Evaluation Methods; Reading Achievement; Reading Tests; Scores; Reading Skills; Gender Differences; Socioeconomic Status; Students with Disabilities; Student Characteristics; Predictor Variables; Diagnostic Tests; Screening Tests; Standardized Tests; Maine; Measures of Academic Progress + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Thesis; Dissertations; Academic thesis; Leseverstehen; Middle school; Middle schools; Student; Students; Mittelschule; Mittelstufenschule; Schüler; Schülerin; School year 06; 6. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 06; School year 07; 7. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 07; School year 08; 8. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 08; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Leseleistung; Lesetest; Reading skill; Lesefertigkeit; Geschlechterkonflikt; Socio-economic status; Sozioökonomischer Status; Disability; Disabilities; Studentin; Behinderung; Prädiktor; Diagnostic test; Diagnostischer Test; Screening-Verfahren; Standadised tests; Standardisierter Test
Abstract	Many adolescents struggle with reading comprehension, despite an emphasis on reading instruction over recent decades. Evidence suggests that informational text is particularly challenging for students. To implement assessments within a multi-tiered framework, schools must have psychometrically adequate tools. Using data of 473 students in Grades 6 through 8 from two Maine middle schools, this study examined the relationship between the NWEA's Measures of Academic Progress in Reading (MAP-R) and Maine's eMPowerME English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA/L) test by Measured Progress. Logistic regression models were statistically significant, with MAP scores explaining 54.6% and 58.2% of the variance in proficiency on the eMPowerME and correctly classifying 83% and 80% of cases for Grades 6-7 and 7-8. Gender, SES, and disability status were used to determine if value was added by combining MAP scores with student characteristics. The added demographic variables were less robust predictors of reading achievement when combined with MAP scores compared to MAP scores alone. This investigation also determined the minimum MAP scores needed in spring of Grade 6 and 7 demonstrating a student was on track to meet proficiency standards on eMPowerME one year later. MAP scores resulted in high AUC values; however, diagnostic accuracy was below the acceptable level recommended for a screener when using NWEA-provided cut scores. By using locally derived cut scores, the diagnostic accuracy was improved by maximizing sensitivity and specificity to an acceptable level. A secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether differences existed between MAP subtests scores and to examine the unique contribution of MAP subtests to the eMPowerME. Students performed significantly higher on the vocabulary acquisition and use (VAU) subtest compared to either the literary or informational text subtests. There was not a statistically significant difference between literary and informational text scores. The VAU subtest had the weakest correlations with eMPowerME. MAP literary text for Grade 6-7 and informational text for Grade 7-8 accounted for the highest degree of variance in eMPowerME scores. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01