View in EDS

The Reliability of Informal Reading Inventories: What Has Changed?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Reliability of Informal Reading Inventories: What Has Changed?
Language: English
Authors: Nilsson, Nina L.
Source: Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2013 29(3):208-230.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2013
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Informal Reading Inventories, Test Reliability, Evaluation Utilization, Content Analysis, Interrater Reliability
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Basic Reading Inventory
DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2013.789779
ISSN: 1057-3569
Abstract: Over time, criticisms related to the technical rigor of informal reading inventories (IRIs) have led many to question using these assessment instruments for high- or low-stakes purposes. In this article, I examine reliability evidence reported in 11 new and updated IRIs and make comparisons with Spector's earlier analysis that revealed fewer than half of the IRIs reported reliability. Based on the findings, I discuss ways in which IRIs have changed and use criteria recommended by Nitko, Salvia and Ysseldyke, and Spector to consider various educational uses of IRI data. (Contains 6 tables and 1 figure.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 44
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1012380
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1012380
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Reliability of Informal Reading Inventories: What Has Changed?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nilsson%2C+Nina+L%2E%22">Nilsson, Nina L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+%26+Writing+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading & Writing Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2013 29(3):208-230.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2013
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Informal+Reading+Inventories%22">Informal Reading Inventories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Utilization%22">Evaluation Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interrater+Reliability%22">Interrater Reliability</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Basic+Reading+Inventory%22">Basic Reading Inventory</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10573569.2013.789779
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1057-3569
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Over time, criticisms related to the technical rigor of informal reading inventories (IRIs) have led many to question using these assessment instruments for high- or low-stakes purposes. In this article, I examine reliability evidence reported in 11 new and updated IRIs and make comparisons with Spector's earlier analysis that revealed fewer than half of the IRIs reported reliability. Based on the findings, I discuss ways in which IRIs have changed and use criteria recommended by Nitko, Salvia and Ysseldyke, and Spector to consider various educational uses of IRI data. (Contains 6 tables and 1 figure.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 44
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1012380
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1012380
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10573569.2013.789779
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 208
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Informal Reading Inventories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interrater Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Basic Reading Inventory
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Reliability of Informal Reading Inventories: What Has Changed?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nilsson, Nina L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2013
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1057-3569
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading & Writing Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1