Reading readiness tests generally are intended to serve two purposes: (1) prediction of readiness for reading instruction and, to a degree, (2) diagnosis of deficiencies of specific skills that are prerequisites for reading. How successful are these tests in serving their purposes

Carducci-Bolchazy, Marie

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 18Issue 3 April 1978 Article 104-1-1978A Survey of the Use of Reading Readiness TestsMarie Carducci-BolchazyHarvey, IllinoisFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationCarducci-Bolchazy, M. (1978). A Survey of the Use of Reading Readiness Tests. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and LanguageArts, 18 (3). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol18/iss3/10A SURVEY OF THE USE OF READINGREADINESS TESTSMarie Carducci-BolchazyREADING SUPERVISORHARVEY, ILLINOISReading readiness tests generally are intended to serve two purposes: (1)prediction of readiness for reading instruction and, to a degree, (2)diagnosis of deficiencies of specific skills that are prerequisites for reading.How successful are thesetests in serving their purposes?Prediction of Readiness for Reading InstructionThe authors of readiness tests don't try to answer directly thequestion ofhow well their readiness test predicts readiness for reading instruction.Instead they report correlations between performance on their readingreadiness test given in the fall of first grade with performance on readingachievement tests given in thespring offirst grade. The assumption ismadethat pupils achieving low in spring were the ones who had poor prereadingskills the previous fall. Thus if the fall readiness scores correlate well withthe spring achievement scores, the readiness test authors assume that theirtest isprobably properly identifying the low-skill pupilsin the fall.Performances on readiness tests do correlate well with performances onreadingachievement tests. The authorsof theMetropolitan Readiness Tests(MRT) report correlations ranging from .58 to .73 between total performance on the MRT and performance on theMetropolitan AchievementTest (MAT) at the end of first grade. The authors of the Clymer-BarrettPrereading Battery (CBPB) report correlations ranging from .49 to .69between total test scores on the CBPB and subtest scores on the MAT at theend of first grade. A review of the manuals of the major reading readinesstests reveals that the correlations reported above are typical.However, even very high correlationsbetweenperformance on readinesstests in the fall and performance on reading achievement tests in thespringwould not be evidence that readiness tests predicted preparedness forreading instruction. According to Calfee and Venezky (1968):A child's ability to name the letters of the alphabet or the kindergarten teacher's rating are both reliable predictors [of readingachievement]. Correlation continues to resist any efforts to beequated with causality, however. By the end of first grade, mostchildren have learned to identify the letters of the alphabet, butmany have not become satisfactory readers. Children who are notable to handle phonetic discrimination or segmentation are alsolikely to be poor readers. The conclusion has been drawn that suchchildren must be taught to listen more carefully to what they hearand say. Yet pilot studies in this laboratory and the experience of       INESS  i  i /  ING S ISOR ARVEY, ILLINOIS e i  r i  t t  er l  re i t ded to s r  t  r s : (1) r i  f r i  f r r  i t  d, t   r  (  i  f fi  f i  ill  t at re r r i i  f r r     t ese t  i   t i     i ss r  t       n't     e     ir     r i g         ir          e                s  t             l            ll                   !  ils           it           h  dz"n     i         -        h  z"evement        .      ?  tt ry   ti s        t               t   i    ls    ing i ss  ls t       ,  r        t ts i  t  ll  for a ce  ing ieve t t ts i  t  ring ld   i e ce t  i ess t ts icted r red ess  reading i struction. r ing t  lfee  zky ( ):    t   t  letters f t  l t r t  -r arten teacher's rating  th reliable re ictors [ f reading achieve e t]. rrelation co tinues t  resist a  efforts to  e ated  ca sality, o er.  the end f fi  ra ,  c il r  have lear  t  identify the lett r  of the alp , but any have not beco e satisfactory readers. hildren  are not able to handle ph ti  discri i  or seg t ti  are als  likely to be poor readers. he conclusion has been dra n that such chil r   be taug t to listen  carefu ly to  the  hear and say. et pil t studies in this laborat r  and the experience of 2io-r/iteachers with whom the writers have spoken suggest that it is difficult to explain phonetic segmentation toa child until he learns toread. (p. 102)Isn't it likely that the children who know their letters inthe beginning offirst grade come from homes that stress education? For the sake ofmaking apoint, let us say that having parents who stress education is a causal factorof reading success. Those children who had parents who stressed educationwould have learned their letters by the time they entered first grade.However, teaching the alphabet to a kindergarten child whose parents didnot care about education would not cause that child to become a readingsuccess.Furthermore, there is the complication of the self-fulfilling prophecy.Rosenthal and Evans (1969) suggest the possibility that teacher expectancyaffects such student motivational components of performance as perseverance, independence, and feelings of competence.Diagnosis of Deficiencies of Prerequisite SkillsBesides having the purpose of prediction of preparedness for readinginstruction, readiness testsgenerallyare intended to be usedto some degreefor diagnostic purposes. Most readiness tests have several subtests, each ofwhich isdesigned to test a separate skill. (However, typically, readiness testauthors discourage users from relying onsubtest scores.) Nevertheless, thereis no evidence that subtests on readiness tests are testing separate skills. Onthe contrary, Calfee and Venezky (1968) posit that readiness tests are actually testing two general factors, the ability to follow instructions andgeneral language competence.There is evidence for the claim that readiness tests are not testing independent factors. In their report onfirst grade reading instruction, Bondand Dykstra (1967) gave a comprehensive set ofsubtest intercorrelations fortheMurphy-Durrell Reading Readiness Analysis (MDRRA). Thephonemessubtest correlated .52 with the letter names subtest and .42 with thelearning rate subtest; the letter names subtest correlated .31 with thelearning rate subtest. The mean of these subtest intercorrelations (.42) isnearly as high as the mean of the correlations between the subtests of theMDRRA given in the fall of first grade with the subtests of theStanfordReading Achievement Test given in the spring (.48).One cannot make logically the following two claims simultaneously:(1) Acorrelation of .5between readiness testperformance in the falland reading achievement test performance in the spring indicatesvalid functioning of a readiness test.(2) Even though the mean ihtercorrelation between subtests on areadiness test is .5, these subtests are measuring independent factors.Yet readiness test authors, either explicitlyor implicitly, are making similarcontradictory claims.There is another way of determining whether independent skills are10-rh teachers ith hom the riters have spoken suggest that it i  di -ficult to explain phonetic seg entation t  a child until h  learns to read. (p. 102) Isn't i  likt'ly that the childreIl ho know t heir le ters i  the beginning o  first grade co e from ho es that stress education? or the sake o  aking a int, let s say that aving arents ho stress ed cation is a causal factor  reading success. ose c ildren ho  arents ho stressed e cation ld  l  t  letters  t  ti  t   first  r, teaching t  lphabet t   i ergarten ild se rents  t are t ti  l  t se t t ild t  co e  r i  . t r , t  i  t  tion  t  -f lfilling .    ) t t  ility t at t r     i l ts    - ,  li s  .   i   t        ti   s      ll           i  .      ,                                    l .             -                          -                  f     rphy- rrel   i  l                  t  t  e      i    te t  e  f          t e  f t e r   t  t  f t e  i  i  t e  f   i  t e t  f t e t  e i  c i  est i  i  t  ri  (. 8). e ot ake l i l  t e f l  t  l  i lt l  (1)  rr l t  f .5 t  r i  test r  i  t e f ll all  reading a i t t st erf  i  t e s ri  i i t  ali  f cti i   a r i  test. (2) ve  t  t e ean iilt r rrelation bet  subtest  on a readi ess test is .5, t es  subtest  ar  easuri  indepe e t factors. et readiness test authors, eit er explicitly or i plicitly, are aking si ilar contradictory clai s. Ther  is anot r ay of deter i i  hether independent skil s are rh~2i\being measured by the various subtests on readiness tests. Presumably theListening Subtest on the MRT and the Phonemes Subtest on the MDRRAare testing the same factor, i.e., auditory discrimination. These two subtestscorrelate .42 or .61 with correction for attenuation. Yet the AlphabetSubtest of the MRT and the Phonemes Subtest of the MDRRA, whichpresumably are testing different skills, correlate equally as well, i.e., .41 or.58 with correction for attenuation (Calfee &Venezky, 1968, pp. 95-96). Inview of this evidence, it is fair to suggest that the subtests of variousreadiness tests are not measuring independent factors.A Survey on Readiness TestsIn view of the reservations about reading readiness tests held by manyauthorities, this investigator considered it important to determine howextensively and for what purposesreadiness tests are being used. Therefore,in March and April of 1975, a surveyon readiness tests was conducted. Thequestions on the survey form reflected the concerns of Calfee and Venezky(1968) and Bond and Dykstra (1967). The survey form wasdesigned by thisinvestigator and later revised according to the suggestions of a number ofreviewers. The revised survey form was sent to a stratified random sample offifteen school districts from ten counties in New York State. The sampleincluded districts of varying socioeconomic levels from rural, suburban,and urban areas. Respondents were reading coordinators, readingdirectors, reading teachers, and, in one case, a building principal. In allcases the respondent was the person assumed to have the greatest familiaritywith the over-all reading program at the primary level. There was a 100%return of the survey forms.Respondents were asked whether readiness tests were used in theirdistricts. If the district used a readiness test, respondents were asked thenames of the tests and the purposes for which the tests were used.Respondents were also asked how satisfied they were with their readingreadiness screening procedures.Of the 15 districts sampled, 13 of them used at least 1 readiness test: 5districts used 4 tests; 3 districts used 3 tests; 1 district used 2 tests and; 4districts used 1 test. The test named most often was the MRT (named by 8respondents) followed by the Gates-MacGinitie Readiness Tests (named by4 respondents). Altothether 73% of the respondents for these 13 districtswere either totally satisfied or satisfied in the major aspects of their districts'readiness screening procedures.Of the 13 districts that used readiness tests, all of them used the tests asone indication of preparedness for reading instruction. Respondents from 8of the districts reported extensive or regular use of the tests to establish acut-off point. (That is to say, children scoring below a particular pointwould not be given reading instruction but would be given readinesstraining instead.) Additionally, 9 of the respondents reported extensive orregular use of the tests for diagnosing specificskillweaknesses, a practice atvariance with the stated purposes of most readiness tests. For example, inthe manual for the MRT, the use of sub-tests for diagnostic purposes isdiscouraged. Yet of the 8 districts that used the MRT, 6 of them used ith-211 i  s r   t       t   t  i t i  t t  t    t   t t  t    t  t    i  i  i i t .  t    rrelate .   .  ith rrection r tt ti .  t  l a et             l    i t   ll  s l   1   i   r ti      .     is i ence, t s      t sts  ri s i  ts     .              ts l     i             ses  ts   .       ,         ti s     t        )    stra 7).  y  s       i     ti s           t         t    ti s   r          l       .    t rs,    ,    ,                    ll      l.         .                                    t             i  .    i ts         s      t ;     '      ts      Sl:             ) l          .         tricts   l  i   i       ir t '                  s  i tion  ss  i  tr tion.      tri ts      f    t lish            l    t   ing i tr tion t    i  tr i ing i t .)    t   rte  t sive  l r   t  t      ,  tice t   t  t ted     t    i  t  al  t   t   f     i  i r . t  t   i tri ts t t sed t  ,  f t  sed it 2i2-r/iextensively or regularly for the purpose of diagnosing specific skillweaknesses.The data presented here suggest that readiness tests are used extensively, and that in the majority of the districts that use readiness tests,the tests are being used for the purpose of establishing a cut off point.Calfee and Venezky (1968) would object to using readiness tests for thispurpose. Their position is that it is sad that "readiness test information canbe used only todelay thebeginning ofreading instruction byintervention of'readiness' activities" (p. 104). MacGinitie (1969) would claim that thewrong question is being asked. He suggested that the question "What andhow is the child ready to learn?" be asked rather than the question, "Is thechild ready to learn to read?."The data from this survey suggest that the majorityof districts that usereadiness tests may be using themextensively or regularly for the purpose ofdiagnosing specific skill weaknesses. Thus the majority of districts that usereadiness tests may be using them inappropriatelywithrespect to the statedpurposes in the manuals.Evidence about readiness tests needs to be disseminated among the usersof these tests. The data from this survey suggest that readiness tests arebeing misused, even with respect to the stated purposes in the manuals.Furthermore, it is not clear that readiness tests are achieving even theirstated purposes. Those who teach reading readiness should be informedabout the evidence regarding readiness tests and should exercise caution inregard to interpreting readiness test scores.REFERENCESBond, G. and Dykstra, R. "The Cooperative Research Program in FirstGrade Reading Instruction." Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 2, no.4, 1967, (complete).Calfee, Robert and Venezky, Richard. "Component Skills in BeginningReading." In K. Goodman &J. Fleming (Eds.), Psycholinguistics andthe Teaching of Reading. Newark, Delaware: International ReadingAssociation, 1968, pp. 91-110.Clymer, Theodore and Barrett, Thomas. Clymer-Barrett PrereadingBattery. Princeton, NewJersey: Personnel Press, Inc., 1967.Hildreth, Gertrude, Griffiths, Nelly, and McGauvran, Mary.MetropolitanReadiness Tests. New York, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,1966.MacGinitie, Walter. "Evaluating Readiness for Learning to Read: ACritical Review and Evaluation of Research." Reading ResearchQuarterly, (Spring, 1969), pp. 396-410.Rosenthal, Robert and EvansJ. "Interpersonal Self-fulfilling Prophecies:Further Extrapolations from the Laboratory to the Classroom."Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, 4, 1969, pp. 371-372.'However, it should be noted that intelligence quotients correlate about as well asreadiness test scores correlate with reading achievement test scores.12-rh extensively or regularly for t  purpose of diagnosing specific ski l eaknesses.   resented ere suggest t  readiness tests are sed e -tensively,  t t i  the Ul ily u  lilt: i:,u iLl:' l  sc readiness tests, t  tests  ing sed for t  rpose  t'Stablishing   -o  IX)int. lfee  ezky ( 8) ld ject t  sing readiness tests for this r se. ir ition is t  i  i  ad t  "readiness test infor ation an  sed ly t  lay t  inning  r ading i struction  i tervention  'readiness' ti ities" ( . ). tie ( ) ld lai  t  t  g tion i  ing .  ted t  t  tion t   i  t  ild ady t  l   e   t  t  ti ,  t  ild  t  l  t  ad?   t     t t    i ts t  i ss ts   i   i l   rly   se  ing ic ll .   ity  i ts           t            s                               .    t r  ss                                   .   .         t .      , . 196   l ,        i  i ."  .  J.     e e      ti nal i g     O     r      i t n,     .,    riffit s, lly,  r , ary. etr l  e i e  ests.  ,   t,   , ., . ac initie, lt  l ti  i  r  t  :  riti l i   l ti   .  e i  ese c  te l , ( ri , 9),  - 10. s t l    ans  I t l elf- fulfil ing r hecies: rt  tr l t  fr  t  aboratory t  t e l .  i   the  nnual o ve ti   the eri  c ologi l ssoci i , , 969, . 1-372. I er, it should be noted that intelligence quotients correlate about as el  as readiness te  scores correlate ith reading achieve ent test scores. 

A Survey of the Use of Reading Readiness Tests

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2298&amp;context=reading_horizons

A Survey of the Use of Reading Readiness Tests

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU