Further studies on the reliability of reading tests

One hundred fifty-four children distributed almost equally throughout Grades IV to VIII were tested with six reading tests in order to discover (a) the reliability of each test and (b) the interrelations between tests. These tests were as follows: Monroe's Standardized Silent Reading Test, Cour...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of educational psychology 1926-10, Vol.17 (7), p.476-481
Hauptverfasser: Current, W. F, Ruch, G. M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 481
container_issue 7
container_start_page 476
container_title Journal of educational psychology
container_volume 17
creator Current, W. F
Ruch, G. M
description One hundred fifty-four children distributed almost equally throughout Grades IV to VIII were tested with six reading tests in order to discover (a) the reliability of each test and (b) the interrelations between tests. These tests were as follows: Monroe's Standardized Silent Reading Test, Courtis's Silent Reading Test, Stanford Reading Test, Thorndike-McCall Reading Scale, Lippincott-Chapman Reading Test, and Haggerty Reading Examination. In all cases save the Lippincott-Chapman Test two forms were given. By using the best known measure of reliability the Stanford test proved to be by far the most reliable (r = .93). The reliability of the tests ranged from .71 to .93. It would seem that 30-40 minutes are necessary for measuring silent reading reliably because the tests requiring fewer minutes than 30 are not sufficiently reliable for practical purposes.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/h0073210
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614301060</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614301060</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a311t-29447aa8f96c5f398134d89690dc9802bd5a9b3e72da2a2535250326049dbe853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10EFLxDAQBeAgCtZV8CcU9eClOsk0SXOUxVVhwYueQ9qkbpa6rUl62H9vZPXoaXjwMQ8eIZcU7iigvN8ASGQUjkhBFaqKUSmOSQHAWAVC4Ck5i3ELAJhDQXA1h7RxoYxptt7FctyVOZfBDd60fvBpX459jsb63UeZXEzxnJz0Zoju4vcuyPvq8W35XK1fn16WD-vKIKWpYqqupTFNr0THe1QNxdo2SiiwnWqAtZYb1aKTzBpmGEfOOCATUCvbuobjglwd_k5h_Jpzs96Oc9jlSi1ojUBBQEbX_yHKFHCKnLOsbg-qC2OMwfV6Cv7ThL2moH9203-7ZXpzoGYyeor7zoTku8FF7eysqdRS11LgN9m_aLA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614301060</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Further studies on the reliability of reading tests</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Current, W. F ; Ruch, G. M</creator><creatorcontrib>Current, W. F ; Ruch, G. M</creatorcontrib><description>One hundred fifty-four children distributed almost equally throughout Grades IV to VIII were tested with six reading tests in order to discover (a) the reliability of each test and (b) the interrelations between tests. These tests were as follows: Monroe's Standardized Silent Reading Test, Courtis's Silent Reading Test, Stanford Reading Test, Thorndike-McCall Reading Scale, Lippincott-Chapman Reading Test, and Haggerty Reading Examination. In all cases save the Lippincott-Chapman Test two forms were given. By using the best known measure of reliability the Stanford test proved to be by far the most reliable (r = .93). The reliability of the tests ranged from .71 to .93. It would seem that 30-40 minutes are necessary for measuring silent reading reliably because the tests requiring fewer minutes than 30 are not sufficiently reliable for practical purposes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0663</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-2176</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/h0073210</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, etc: Warwick &amp; York</publisher><subject>Childhood Development ; Human ; Reading Measures ; Test Reliability</subject><ispartof>Journal of educational psychology, 1926-10, Vol.17 (7), p.476-481</ispartof><rights>1926 Unknown</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a311t-29447aa8f96c5f398134d89690dc9802bd5a9b3e72da2a2535250326049dbe853</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27871,27926,27927</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Current, W. F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruch, G. M</creatorcontrib><title>Further studies on the reliability of reading tests</title><title>Journal of educational psychology</title><description>One hundred fifty-four children distributed almost equally throughout Grades IV to VIII were tested with six reading tests in order to discover (a) the reliability of each test and (b) the interrelations between tests. These tests were as follows: Monroe's Standardized Silent Reading Test, Courtis's Silent Reading Test, Stanford Reading Test, Thorndike-McCall Reading Scale, Lippincott-Chapman Reading Test, and Haggerty Reading Examination. In all cases save the Lippincott-Chapman Test two forms were given. By using the best known measure of reliability the Stanford test proved to be by far the most reliable (r = .93). The reliability of the tests ranged from .71 to .93. It would seem that 30-40 minutes are necessary for measuring silent reading reliably because the tests requiring fewer minutes than 30 are not sufficiently reliable for practical purposes.</description><subject>Childhood Development</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Reading Measures</subject><subject>Test Reliability</subject><issn>0022-0663</issn><issn>1939-2176</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1926</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp10EFLxDAQBeAgCtZV8CcU9eClOsk0SXOUxVVhwYueQ9qkbpa6rUl62H9vZPXoaXjwMQ8eIZcU7iigvN8ASGQUjkhBFaqKUSmOSQHAWAVC4Ck5i3ELAJhDQXA1h7RxoYxptt7FctyVOZfBDd60fvBpX459jsb63UeZXEzxnJz0Zoju4vcuyPvq8W35XK1fn16WD-vKIKWpYqqupTFNr0THe1QNxdo2SiiwnWqAtZYb1aKTzBpmGEfOOCATUCvbuobjglwd_k5h_Jpzs96Oc9jlSi1ojUBBQEbX_yHKFHCKnLOsbg-qC2OMwfV6Cv7ThL2moH9203-7ZXpzoGYyeor7zoTku8FF7eysqdRS11LgN9m_aLA</recordid><startdate>192610</startdate><enddate>192610</enddate><creator>Current, W. F</creator><creator>Ruch, G. M</creator><general>Warwick &amp; York</general><general>American Psychological Association, etc</general><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>192610</creationdate><title>Further studies on the reliability of reading tests</title><author>Current, W. F ; Ruch, G. M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a311t-29447aa8f96c5f398134d89690dc9802bd5a9b3e72da2a2535250326049dbe853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1926</creationdate><topic>Childhood Development</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Reading Measures</topic><topic>Test Reliability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Current, W. F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruch, G. M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Journal of educational psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Current, W. F</au><au>Ruch, G. M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Further studies on the reliability of reading tests</atitle><jtitle>Journal of educational psychology</jtitle><date>1926-10</date><risdate>1926</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>476</spage><epage>481</epage><pages>476-481</pages><issn>0022-0663</issn><eissn>1939-2176</eissn><abstract>One hundred fifty-four children distributed almost equally throughout Grades IV to VIII were tested with six reading tests in order to discover (a) the reliability of each test and (b) the interrelations between tests. These tests were as follows: Monroe's Standardized Silent Reading Test, Courtis's Silent Reading Test, Stanford Reading Test, Thorndike-McCall Reading Scale, Lippincott-Chapman Reading Test, and Haggerty Reading Examination. In all cases save the Lippincott-Chapman Test two forms were given. By using the best known measure of reliability the Stanford test proved to be by far the most reliable (r = .93). The reliability of the tests ranged from .71 to .93. It would seem that 30-40 minutes are necessary for measuring silent reading reliably because the tests requiring fewer minutes than 30 are not sufficiently reliable for practical purposes.</abstract><cop>Washington, etc</cop><pub>Warwick &amp; York</pub><doi>10.1037/h0073210</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-0663
ispartof Journal of educational psychology, 1926-10, Vol.17 (7), p.476-481
issn 0022-0663
1939-2176
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_614301060
source Periodicals Index Online; APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Childhood Development
Human
Reading Measures
Test Reliability
title Further studies on the reliability of reading tests
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T20%3A16%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Further%20studies%20on%20the%20reliability%20of%20reading%20tests&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20educational%20psychology&rft.au=Current,%20W.%20F&rft.date=1926-10&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=476&rft.epage=481&rft.pages=476-481&rft.issn=0022-0663&rft.eissn=1939-2176&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/h0073210&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614301060%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614301060&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true