This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent is the IRI used for the purpose of initial placement of students in reading materials? 2. To what extent do classroom teachers and support specialists value the IRI as a means of providing diagnostic information about students\u27 reading levels (subsequent to initial placement), oral reading ability, comprehension ability, and word recognition skills? 3. How frequently do classroom teachers and support specialists administer an IRI to obtain diagnostic information? 4. What is the relationship between classroom teachers\u27 and support specialist\u27 frequency use of the IRI for diagnostic purposes and their value ratings of the IRI as a diagnostic instrument

Searls, Evelyn F.

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts Volume 28 Issue 2 January 1988 Article 2 1-1-1988 What's The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used? Evelyn F. Searls University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons  Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Searls, E. F. (1988). What's The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used?. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 28 (2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol28/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Education and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact wmu-scholarworks@wmich.edu. WHAT'S THE VALUE OF AN IRI? IS IT BEING USED? EVEL YN F. SEARLS College of Education University of South Florida Tampa, Florida While the Informal Reading Inventory (IR!) has long been recom mended as a valuable inst rument for initial placement of students in reading materials and for diagnosis of students' st rengths and weaknesses in comprehension and word recognition skills (Beldin, 1970), the feasibility of its use by classroom teachers has been questioned be-cause of the time involved. Della-Piana, jensen, and Mur-dock (1970) stated that the time factor in the const ruction, administ ration, and interpretation of IRIs precluded their frequent use by classroom teachers. However, no data were provided to substantiate their opinion. From a survey among 24 professionals (reading specialists, classroom teachers, media specialists, and one administrator), johns (1976) reported that the group was evenly split on the usability of the IRI by classroom teachers. "A number of respondents indicated that the use of IRIs by elementary teachers was a problem because of the time involved" (johns, 1976, p. 12). In cont rast, the respondents perceived no problems in the use of the IRI by reading and learning disability specialists in a clinical situation. Recently, Masztal and Smith (1984) provided some empirical data on the use of IRIs by classroom teachers. While 78% of their 125 respondents indicated that they knew how to administer an IRI, only 54% reported that they actually administered IRIs in their classrooms. Masztal and Smith concluded that, because the IRI was used by over half the teachers in their sample, teacher educators were justified in spending large amounts of time necessary to inst ruct preservice teachers in the administ ration and interpretation of an IRI. However, their questionnaire did not address the frequency of IRI use. READING HORIZONS, WintE~r, 1988 ------ page 93 As teacher educators, we have for some time had a naggIng concern that were were spending an inordinate pro-portion of time in our undergraduate corrective reading course teaching a procedure (i.e. the IRI) that classroom teachers would seldom use once they were in the classroom. This concern, which grow out of informal contects with teachers and observations in "real" classrooms, led us to the current study. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent is the IRI used for the purpose of initial placement of students in reading materials? 2. To what extent do classroom teachers and support specialists value the IRI as a means of providing diagnos-tic information about students' reading levels (subsequent to initial placement), oral reading ability, comprehension ability, and word recognition skills? 3. How frequently do classroom teachers and support specialists administer an IRI to obtain diagnostic informa-tion? 4. What is the relationship between classroom teachers' and support specialist' frequency use of the IRI for diag-nostic purposes and their value ratings of the IRI as a diagnostic instrument? Method Subjects The sample (N = 343) consisted of 280 (82%) classroom teachers and 63 {18%) support specialists in grades K-6. The category of support specialists included personnel who worked with students outside the classroom (reading and learning disability specialists, guidance counselors, etc.) and curriculum specialists who worked primarily with tea-chers. The respondents were in 11 Florida counties of varying population size and characteristics. Two counties (n = 174) were large urban centers with a population range of 650,000 to 750,000. Five counties (n = 93) ranged from 150,000 to 300,000 in population and were a mixture of small cities and rural areas. The remaining 4 counties (n = 76) had under 50,000 population and were primarily rural in nature. The subjects' years of educational experience were as READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 94 follows: 1-4 years (14%), 5-9 years (22%), 10-14 years (25%), and 15+ years (39%). Ages were 21-30 (19%), 31-40 (40%), and 41+ (41 %). Ninety-four percent were female and 6% were male. The breakdown of the 280 classruum teachers accuruing to grade level was: K, 27 (10%); Grade 1, 6S (23%); Grade 2, 40 (14%); Grade 3, 47 (17%); Grade 4, 46 (16%); Grade 5, 34 (12%); and Grade 6, 21 (8%). Materials The questionnaire was designed to determine the value and frequency of use of a number of diagnostic procedures, among which were five items specifically related to the IRI. The use of a number of diagnostic procedures masked our primary interest (for this study) in the IRI; that is, we hoped to alleviate the problem of participants' respond-Ing favorably to the researchers' obvious topic of interest. The questionnaire was comprised of three major parts: (a) the use of information from four different data sources (one of which was the IRI) for placing students in reading materials when they entered a new grade level or when they transferred into a school; (b) 10 statements related to the value of the use of diagnostic procedures, rated on a 7-point scale; and (c) 7 statements related to the fre-quency of use of the same diagnostic procedures, rated on a 7-point scale. As can be seen in the questionnaire (see Appendix), value statements 2, 6, 7, and 10, and frequency statement 2 were concerned with the IRI. Procedure We identified Florida counties of varying population size and characteristics (as previously described) in order to have a sample somewhat representative of the state's population of teachers. The counties were geographically dist ributed over the state. In order to maximize the percentage of questionnaires returned, we sent packets of questionnaires to key persons known to the researchers in the identified counties. A cover letter requested that they distribute the questionnaires to selected school faculties in their counties and return the questionnaires when they were completed. A large stamped, self-addressed return envelope was included for READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 95 their convenience. This procedure resulted In a return of 343 questionnaires (85%). Results Use of Four Data Sources for Placement Table 1 presents the number and percent of respondents who reported using each of four data sources ORI, basal placement tests, former basal book placements, and achieve-ment tests) to place students in reading materials when they entered a new grade level or when they transferred into the school. According to these results, the IRI was used slightly more often than the other three data sources to obtain information for initial pupil placement in reading materials. However, the percentages of use of the first three sources were very similar. Table 1 Number and Percent of Respondents Using Data Sources for Placement Decisions Data sources n % -IRI 214 62 Basal placement tests 204 59 Former basal book placements 198 58 Achievement tests 121 35 Note-- Totals add to more than 100% because many re-spondents checked more than one data source. Value and Frequency of Use of the IRI for Diagnostic Purposes As can be seen in Table 2, classroom teachers' mean ratings of the four IRI value statements clustered around the rating of 5, "Often Valuable." Support specialists' mean value ratings were slightly higher than those of the classroom teachers, but they could still be characterized by the "Often Valuable" descriptor. Frequency of IRI use for diagnostic purposes is pre-sented in Table 3. For purposes of comparison respondents were classified into one of three categories based on their READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------- page 96 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Respondents' Value Ratings of the IRI for Diagnostic Purposes Classroom Support 11 alue teachers specialists statements* M SO M SO (2) Reading levels 5.16 1.25 5.32 1.20 (6) Oral reading 5.12 1.32 5.45 1.18 (7) Comprehension 4.93 1.38 5.16 1.36 (10) Word recognition 5.39 1.21 5.53 1.17 Note--Me.ans and standard deviations are based on a 7-point ratIng scale. * Numbers In parentheses refer to item number on the questionnaire (see Appendix). Table 3 Number and Percent of Respondents' Frequency of Use of the IRJ for Diagnostic Purposes Frequency Classroom Support of teachers specialists use* (275) E (62) n % % -Low 168 61 29 49 Moderate 84 31 18 29 * High 23 8 15 24 Low use = "Never happens" or "Happens less than once per semester." Moderate use = "Happens less than once 0 per month" or "Happens less than once per week." High use = "Happens once per week," "Happens two-four ... " " ... five or more times per week." reported frequency of use of the JRJ, as explained above. Almost two-thirds of the classroom teachers indicated low use while slightly less than half of the support special-ists fell in this category. Percentages of moderate use were similar for both groups, approximately 30 %. While one READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 97 fourth of the support specialists indicated high use, only one-twelfth of the classroom teachers did so. To determine whether respondents in different frequency of use categories valued the IRI differently, data were subjected to separate one-way analysis of variance proce-dures for classroom teachers and support specialists, respec-tively. For each of the two respondent groups four different analyses were performed, using as dependent measures Table 4 Frequency of Use Group Means and F Tests on Respondents' Value Ratings of the IRI for Diagnostic Purposes Value Frequency of use groups statements Low Moderate High F Classroom teachers* (2) Reading levels 5.04 5.25 5.52 1.88 (6) Oral reading 4.93 5.26 5.74 4.66a (7) Comprehension 4.83 4.96 5.35 1.45 (10) Word recognition 5.21 5.56 5.74 3.45 b Support specialists** (2) Reading levels 5.14 5.50 5.40 0.55 (6) Oral reading 5.48 5.56 5.27 0.26 (7) Comprehension 4.93 5.39 5.40 0.89 (10) Word recognition 5.55 5.17 5.33 0.54 * E = 168 (Lc1w;, 84 (Mocerate), 23 (High). ** n = 29 (Low), 18 (Moderate), 15 (High) b'p < .05. a'p < .02. value ratings of the IRI for providing information on stu-dents' (a) reading levels, (b) oral reading ability, (c) comprehension ability, and (d) word recognition skills. Table 4 reports the means and overall ~ values for each analysis by respondent group. The results of these analyses show significant omnibus F tests (E <.05) in two READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 98 instances (oral reading and word recognition) for the class-room teacher data only. Scheffe' s post hoc test was utilized to make pairwise comparisons between the means of usage groups (low, moderate, high) to determine which groups differed significantly in thei r value ratings of the IRI. In only one instance was [I significant difference observed between pairs of individual group means. Classroom teachers in the high frequency of use category perceived the IRI as significantly more valuable as a tool for providing informa-tion on students' oral reading ability than teachers in the low frequency of use category, f(2,272) = 4.66, .E < .02. Discussion For this sample of 280 classroom teachers and 63 support specialists, the IRI was a major data source for initially placing students in reading materials; however, it was used only slightly more than basal placement tests and former basal book placements. Our questionnaire did not ask who administered the placement instruments, but many classroom teachers wrote in the margin that support specialists were responsible for placement decisions. Though both groups of respondents appeared to recognize equally the value of the IRI as a diagnostic instrument, classroom teachers indicated a much lower level of actual use. When the relationship between frequency of IRI use for diagnostic purposes and value ratings of the IRI as a diagnostic inst rument was examined, we found that class-room teachers who used the IRI frequently valued it signifi-cantly higher than those teachers who used it infrequently or not at all, but only for diagnosing oral reading ability. There were no significant differences between use cate-gories in the value ratings of the IRI as an inst rument for determining students' reading levels (subsequent to initial placement), comprehension ability, and word recognItIOn skills. It seems that, if teacher educators are going to spend instructional time on the IRI, and if they want to encourage its use, they must place the emphasis on the different kinds of diagnostic information that it can provide. This survey indicated that, for one reason or another, the IRI was not frequently used by classroom teachers. While our questionnaire was not designed to determine classroom teachers' reasons for not using and IRI, it is logical to assume, as suggested by the literature, that READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 99 lack of time was a major factor. If the IRI is seldom going to be used by classroom teachers, we question the practice of teaching its administration and interpretation in a one semester corrective reading course for preservice teachers. The inordinate amount of time required for students to achieve proficiency in the use of an IRI might better be spent in showing students how to obtain diagnos-tic information at the same ti me as they are inst ructing groups of children in the regular reading program. Klesius and Searls (1986) have suggested a number of ways that this might be accomplished and have provided tabulation forms to facilitate the process of recording individual student responses in a group situation. While group assess-ment cannot provide as much information as individual testing with an IRI, the probability that teachers would actually carry out such assessment appears to be greater. However, the acceptance of this hypothesis will depend on further empirical verification. REFERENCES Beldin, H. O. (1970). Informal reading testing: Historical reVIew and review of the research. In W. K. Durr (Ed.), Reading difficulties: Diagnosis, correction, and remediation (pp. 67-84). Newark, DE: IRA. Della-Piana, G., jensen,B.j., & Murdock, E. (1970). New di-rections for informal reading assessment. W. K. Durr (Ed.), Ope cit., pp. 127-132. johns, j.L. (1976). Informal reading inventories: A survey among professionals. Paper presented at the annual convention of the IRA, Anaheim, CA.(ERIC Document Reproduction Servo # ED 120 665). Klesius, j. P., & Searls, E. F. (1986). Reading diagnosis in real classrooms. The Florida Reading Quarterly, 22, 14-22. Masztel, N.B., & Smith, L. L. (1984). Do teachers really administer IRIs? Reading World, 24, 80-83. READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 page 100 APPENDIX Questionnaire: Value and Frequency of Use of Diagnostic Procedures We are in the process of revising the content of our undergraduate and gradu-ate courses that include the diagnosis of reading problems. We need your input as to which diagnostic procedures are most valuable and how frequently you use them. Regular classroom teFH'her. 19R'i-Rtl: ('minty Graae(s) Other than regular classroom teacher, 1985-86: _____ -=.,......., ______ _ Title Please circle: Years of experience: Age: 21-30 1-4 31-40 5-9 Grades (s) 10-14 15+ 41 or older Sex: M F Which of the following is (are) used to place children in reading materials when they enter a new grade level or when they transfer into the school? Basal placement tests Achievement test Informal reading inventory Former basal book placement Directions: Please respond to each statement below in terms of how valuable you perceive the use of each diagnostic procedure to be. 1 2 3 4 Value of Use Never Valuable Very Seldom Valuable Seldom Valuable Sometimes Valuable 5 6 7 Often Valuable Very Often Valuable Always Valuable 1. Parent interviews are valuable for identifying children's --- reading st rengths and weaknesses. 2. Informal reading inventories are valuable for indentifying --- students' reading levels. 3. Cumulative records are valuable for identifying students' --- reading levels. 4. The last basal book completed by the student is valuable --- for identifying his/her reading level. 5. Standardized reading achievement tests are valuable for --- providing diagnostic information. 6. Informal reading inventories are valuable for providing information about oral reading ability. 7. Informal reading inventories are valuable for providing information about students' ability to comprehend. 8. Standardized achievement tests are valuable for identifying --- the reading level at which students can perform. 9. Observation of oral reading behaviors is valuable for providing --- information about students' word recognition skills. 10. Informal reading inventories are valuable for providing information about students' word recognition skills. READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 Directions: Please respond to each statement below in terms of how frequently you use the diagnostic procedure referred to. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Fre9uenc~ of Use 1 Never happens 2 Happens less than once per semester 3 Happens less than once per month 4 Happens less than once per week 5 Happens once per week 6 Happens two-four times per week 7 Happens five or more times per week [ refer to standardized test results for diagnostic information. [ administer an informal reading inventory to get diagnostic information. [ refer to cumulative records for diagnostic information. I refer to the results of the basal skills tests for diagnostic information. I have parent interviews to get diagnostic information. I use oral reading to gain diagnostic information. I use worksheets (workbook or ditto) to gain diagnostic information. page 101 

What\u27s The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used?

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 
Language Arts 
Volume 28 
Issue 2 January 1988 Article 2 
1-1-1988 
What's The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used? 
Evelyn F. Searls 
University of South Florida 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons 
 Part of the Education Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Searls, E. F. (1988). What's The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used?. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy 
and Language Arts, 28 (2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol28/iss2/
2 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by 
the Special Education and Literacy Studies at 
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion 
in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language 
Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. 
For more information, please contact wmu-
scholarworks@wmich.edu. 
WHAT'S THE VALUE OF AN IRI? 
IS IT BEING USED? 
EVEL YN F. SEARLS 
College of Education 
University of South Florida 
Tampa, Florida 
While the Informal Reading Inventory (IR!) has long 
been recom mended as a valuable inst rument for initial 
placement of students in reading materials and for diagnosis 
of students' st rengths and weaknesses in comprehension 
and word recognition skills (Beldin, 1970), the feasibility 
of its use by classroom teachers has been questioned be-
cause of the time involved. Della-Piana, jensen, and Mur-
dock (1970) stated that the time factor in the const ruction, 
administ ration, and interpretation of IRIs precluded their 
frequent use by classroom teachers. However, no data 
were provided to substantiate their opinion. From a survey 
among 24 professionals (reading specialists, classroom 
teachers, media specialists, and one administrator), johns 
(1976) reported that the group was evenly split on the 
usability of the IRI by classroom teachers. "A number of 
respondents indicated that the use of IRIs by elementary 
teachers was a problem because of the time involved" 
(johns, 1976, p. 12). In cont rast, the respondents perceived 
no problems in the use of the IRI by reading and learning 
disability specialists in a clinical situation. 
Recently, Masztal and Smith (1984) provided some 
empirical data on the use of IRIs by classroom teachers. 
While 78% of their 125 respondents indicated that they 
knew how to administer an IRI, only 54% reported that 
they actually administered IRIs in their classrooms. Masztal 
and Smith concluded that, because the IRI was used by 
over half the teachers in their sample, teacher educators 
were justified in spending large amounts of time necessary 
to inst ruct preservice teachers in the administ ration and 
interpretation of an IRI. However, their questionnaire did 
not address the frequency of IRI use. 
READING HORIZONS, WintE~r, 1988 ------ page 93 
As teacher educators, we have for some time had a 
naggIng concern that were were spending an inordinate pro-
portion of time in our undergraduate corrective reading 
course teaching a procedure (i.e. the IRI) that classroom 
teachers would seldom use once they were in the classroom. 
This concern, which grow out of informal contects with 
teachers and observations in "real" classrooms, led us to 
the current study. 
This study sought to answer the following questions: 
1. To what extent is the IRI used for the purpose of 
initial placement of students in reading materials? 
2. To what extent do classroom teachers and support 
specialists value the IRI as a means of providing diagnos-
tic information about students' reading levels (subsequent 
to initial placement), oral reading ability, comprehension 
ability, and word recognition skills? 
3. How frequently do classroom teachers and support 
specialists administer an IRI to obtain diagnostic informa-
tion? 
4. What is the relationship between classroom teachers' 
and support specialist' frequency use of the IRI for diag-
nostic purposes and their value ratings of the IRI as a 
diagnostic instrument? 
Method 
Subjects 
The sample (N = 343) consisted of 280 (82%) classroom 
teachers and 63 {18%) support specialists in grades K-6. 
The category of support specialists included personnel who 
worked with students outside the classroom (reading and 
learning disability specialists, guidance counselors, etc.) 
and curriculum specialists who worked primarily with tea-
chers. The respondents were in 11 Florida counties of 
varying population size and characteristics. Two counties 
(n = 174) were large urban centers with a population 
range of 650,000 to 750,000. Five counties (n = 93) ranged 
from 150,000 to 300,000 in population and were a mixture 
of small cities and rural areas. The remaining 4 counties 
(n = 76) had under 50,000 population and were primarily 
rural in nature. 
The subjects' years of educational experience were as 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 94 
follows: 1-4 years (14%), 5-9 years (22%), 10-14 years 
(25%), and 15+ years (39%). Ages were 21-30 (19%), 31-40 
(40%), and 41+ (41 %). Ninety-four percent were female 
and 6% were male. 
The breakdown of the 280 classruum teachers accuruing 
to grade level was: K, 27 (10%); Grade 1, 6S (23%); Grade 
2, 40 (14%); Grade 3, 47 (17%); Grade 4, 46 (16%); Grade 
5, 34 (12%); and Grade 6, 21 (8%). 
Materials 
The questionnaire was designed to determine the value 
and frequency of use of a number of diagnostic procedures, 
among which were five items specifically related to the 
IRI. The use of a number of diagnostic procedures masked 
our primary interest (for this study) in the IRI; that is, 
we hoped to alleviate the problem of participants' respond-
Ing favorably to the researchers' obvious topic of interest. 
The questionnaire was comprised of three major parts: 
(a) the use of information from four different data sources 
(one of which was the IRI) for placing students in reading 
materials when they entered a new grade level or when 
they transferred into a school; (b) 10 statements related 
to the value of the use of diagnostic procedures, rated on 
a 7-point scale; and (c) 7 statements related to the fre-
quency of use of the same diagnostic procedures, rated on 
a 7-point scale. As can be seen in the questionnaire (see 
Appendix), value statements 2, 6, 7, and 10, and frequency 
statement 2 were concerned with the IRI. 
Procedure 
We identified Florida counties of varying population 
size and characteristics (as previously described) in order 
to have a sample somewhat representative of the state's 
population of teachers. The counties were geographically 
dist ributed over the state. 
In order to maximize the percentage of questionnaires 
returned, we sent packets of questionnaires to key persons 
known to the researchers in the identified counties. A 
cover letter requested that they distribute the questionnaires 
to selected school faculties in their counties and return 
the questionnaires when they were completed. A large 
stamped, self-addressed return envelope was included for 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 95 
their convenience. This procedure resulted In a return of 
343 questionnaires (85%). 
Results 
Use of Four Data Sources for Placement 
Table 1 presents the number and percent of respondents 
who reported using each of four data sources ORI, basal 
placement tests, former basal book placements, and achieve-
ment tests) to place students in reading materials when 
they entered a new grade level or when they transferred 
into the school. According to these results, the IRI was 
used slightly more often than the other three data sources 
to obtain information for initial pupil placement in reading 
materials. However, the percentages of use of the first 
three sources were very similar. 
Table 1 
Number and Percent of Respondents Using Data Sources 
for Placement Decisions 
Data sources n % -
IRI 214 62 
Basal placement tests 204 59 
Former basal book placements 198 58 
Achievement tests 121 35 
Note-- Totals add to more than 100% because many re-
spondents checked more than one data source. 
Value and Frequency of Use of 
the IRI for Diagnostic Purposes 
As can be seen in Table 2, classroom teachers' mean 
ratings of the four IRI value statements clustered around 
the rating of 5, "Often Valuable." Support specialists' 
mean value ratings were slightly higher than those of the 
classroom teachers, but they could still be characterized 
by the "Often Valuable" descriptor. 
Frequency of IRI use for diagnostic purposes is pre-
sented in Table 3. For purposes of comparison respondents 
were classified into one of three categories based on their 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------- page 96 
Table 2 
Means and Standard Deviations of Respondents' 
Value Ratings of the IRI for Diagnostic Purposes 
Classroom Support 
11 alue teachers specialists 
statements* M SO M SO 
(2) Reading levels 5.16 1.25 5.32 1.20 
(6) Oral reading 5.12 1.32 5.45 1.18 
(7) Comprehension 4.93 1.38 5.16 1.36 
(10) Word recognition 5.39 1.21 5.53 1.17 
Note--Me.ans and standard deviations are based on a 7-point 
ratIng scale. 
* Numbers In parentheses refer to item number on the 
questionnaire (see Appendix). 
Table 3 
Number and Percent of Respondents' 
Frequency of Use of the IRJ for Diagnostic Purposes 
Frequency Classroom Support 
of teachers specialists 
use* 
(275) E (62) n % % -
Low 168 61 29 49 
Moderate 84 31 18 29 
* 
High 23 8 15 24 
Low use = "Never happens" or "Happens less than once 
per semester." Moderate use = "Happens less than once 0 
per month" or "Happens less than once per week." High 
use = "Happens once per week," "Happens two-four ... " 
" ... five or more times per week." 
reported frequency of use of the JRJ, as explained above. 
Almost two-thirds of the classroom teachers indicated 
low use while slightly less than half of the support special-
ists fell in this category. Percentages of moderate use 
were similar for both groups, approximately 30 %. While one 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 97 
fourth of the support specialists indicated high use, only 
one-twelfth of the classroom teachers did so. 
To determine whether respondents in different frequency 
of use categories valued the IRI differently, data were 
subjected to separate one-way analysis of variance proce-
dures for classroom teachers and support specialists, respec-
tively. For each of the two respondent groups four different 
analyses were performed, using as dependent measures 
Table 4 
Frequency of Use Group Means and F Tests on Respondents' 
Value Ratings of the IRI for Diagnostic Purposes 
Value 
Frequency of use groups 
statements Low Moderate High F 
Classroom teachers* 
(2) Reading levels 5.04 5.25 5.52 1.88 
(6) Oral reading 4.93 5.26 5.74 4.66
a 
(7) Comprehension 4.83 4.96 5.35 1.45 
(10) Word recognition 5.21 5.56 5.74 3.45 b 
Support specialists** 
(2) Reading levels 5.14 5.50 5.40 0.55 
(6) Oral reading 5.48 5.56 5.27 0.26 
(7) Comprehension 4.93 5.39 5.40 0.89 
(10) Word recognition 5.55 5.17 5.33 0.54 
* E = 168 (Lc1w;, 84 (Mocerate), 23 (High). ** n = 29 
(Low), 18 (Moderate), 15 (High) 
b'p < .05. a'p < .02. 
value ratings of the IRI for providing information on stu-
dents' (a) reading levels, (b) oral reading ability, (c) 
comprehension ability, and (d) word recognition skills. 
Table 4 reports the means and overall ~ values for 
each analysis by respondent group. The results of these 
analyses show significant omnibus F tests (E <.05) in two 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 98 
instances (oral reading and word recognition) for the class-
room teacher data only. Scheffe' s post hoc test was utilized 
to make pairwise comparisons between the means of usage 
groups (low, moderate, high) to determine which groups 
differed significantly in thei r value ratings of the IRI. In 
only one instance was [I significant difference observed 
between pairs of individual group means. Classroom teachers 
in the high frequency of use category perceived the IRI as 
significantly more valuable as a tool for providing informa-
tion on students' oral reading ability than teachers in the 
low frequency of use category, f(2,272) = 4.66, .E < .02. 
Discussion 
For this sample of 280 classroom teachers and 63 
support specialists, the IRI was a major data source for 
initially placing students in reading materials; however, it 
was used only slightly more than basal placement tests 
and former basal book placements. Our questionnaire did 
not ask who administered the placement instruments, but 
many classroom teachers wrote in the margin that support 
specialists were responsible for placement decisions. Though 
both groups of respondents appeared to recognize equally 
the value of the IRI as a diagnostic instrument, classroom 
teachers indicated a much lower level of actual use. 
When the relationship between frequency of IRI use 
for diagnostic purposes and value ratings of the IRI as a 
diagnostic inst rument was examined, we found that class-
room teachers who used the IRI frequently valued it signifi-
cantly higher than those teachers who used it infrequently 
or not at all, but only for diagnosing oral reading ability. 
There were no significant differences between use cate-
gories in the value ratings of the IRI as an inst rument for 
determining students' reading levels (subsequent to initial 
placement), comprehension ability, and word recognItIOn 
skills. It seems that, if teacher educators are going to 
spend instructional time on the IRI, and if they want to 
encourage its use, they must place the emphasis on the 
different kinds of diagnostic information that it can provide. 
This survey indicated that, for one reason or another, 
the IRI was not frequently used by classroom teachers. 
While our questionnaire was not designed to determine 
classroom teachers' reasons for not using and IRI, it is 
logical to assume, as suggested by the literature, that 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 ------ page 99 
lack of time was a major factor. If the IRI is seldom 
going to be used by classroom teachers, we question the 
practice of teaching its administration and interpretation 
in a one semester corrective reading course for preservice 
teachers. The inordinate amount of time required for 
students to achieve proficiency in the use of an IRI might 
better be spent in showing students how to obtain diagnos-
tic information at the same ti me as they are inst ructing 
groups of children in the regular reading program. Klesius 
and Searls (1986) have suggested a number of ways that 
this might be accomplished and have provided tabulation 
forms to facilitate the process of recording individual 
student responses in a group situation. While group assess-
ment cannot provide as much information as individual 
testing with an IRI, the probability that teachers would 
actually carry out such assessment appears to be greater. 
However, the acceptance of this hypothesis will depend on 
further empirical verification. 
REFERENCES 
Beldin, H. O. (1970). Informal reading testing: Historical 
reVIew and review of the research. In W. K. Durr 
(Ed.), Reading difficulties: Diagnosis, correction, and 
remediation (pp. 67-84). Newark, DE: IRA. 
Della-Piana, G., jensen,B.j., & Murdock, E. (1970). New di-
rections for informal reading assessment. W. K. Durr 
(Ed.), Ope cit., pp. 127-132. 
johns, j.L. (1976). Informal reading inventories: A survey 
among professionals. Paper presented at the annual 
convention of the IRA, Anaheim, CA.(ERIC Document 
Reproduction Servo # ED 120 665). 
Klesius, j. P., & Searls, E. F. (1986). Reading diagnosis in 
real classrooms. The Florida Reading Quarterly, 22, 
14-22. 
Masztel, N.B., & Smith, L. L. (1984). Do teachers really 
administer IRIs? Reading World, 24, 80-83. 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 page 100 
APPENDIX 
Questionnaire: Value and Frequency of Use of Diagnostic Procedures 
We are in the process of revising the content of our undergraduate and gradu-
ate courses that include the diagnosis of reading problems. We need your 
input as to which diagnostic procedures are most valuable and how frequently 
you use them. 
Regular classroom teFH'her. 19R'i-Rtl: ('minty 
Graae(s) 
Other than regular classroom teacher, 1985-86: _____ -=.,......., ______ _ 
Title 
Please circle: 
Years of experience: 
Age: 21-30 
1-4 
31-40 
5-9 
Grades (s) 
10-14 15+ 
41 or older 
Sex: M F 
Which of the following is (are) used to place children in reading materials when 
they enter a new grade level or when they transfer into the school? 
Basal placement tests Achievement test 
Informal reading inventory Former basal book 
placement 
Directions: Please respond to each statement below in terms of how valuable 
you perceive the use of each diagnostic procedure to be. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
Value of Use 
Never Valuable 
Very Seldom Valuable 
Seldom Valuable 
Sometimes Valuable 
5 
6 
7 
Often Valuable 
Very Often Valuable 
Always Valuable 
1. Parent interviews are valuable for identifying children's 
--- reading st rengths and weaknesses. 
2. Informal reading inventories are valuable for indentifying 
--- students' reading levels. 
3. Cumulative records are valuable for identifying students' 
--- reading levels. 
4. The last basal book completed by the student is valuable 
--- for identifying his/her reading level. 
5. Standardized reading achievement tests are valuable for 
--- providing diagnostic information. 
6. Informal reading inventories are valuable for providing 
information about oral reading ability. 
7. Informal reading inventories are valuable for providing 
information about students' ability to comprehend. 
8. Standardized achievement tests are valuable for identifying 
--- the reading level at which students can perform. 
9. Observation of oral reading behaviors is valuable for providing 
--- information about students' word recognition skills. 
10. Informal reading inventories are valuable for providing 
information about students' word recognition skills. 
READING HORIZONS, Winter, 1988 
Directions: Please respond to each statement below in terms of how 
frequently you use the diagnostic procedure referred to. 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
Fre9uenc~ of Use 
1 Never happens 
2 Happens less than once per semester 
3 Happens less than once per month 
4 Happens less than once per week 
5 Happens once per week 
6 Happens two-four times per week 
7 Happens five or more times per week 
[ refer to standardized test results for diagnostic information. 
[ administer an informal reading inventory to get diagnostic 
information. 
[ refer to cumulative records for diagnostic information. 
I refer to the results of the basal skills tests for diagnostic 
information. 
I have parent interviews to get diagnostic information. 
I use oral reading to gain diagnostic information. 
I use worksheets (workbook or ditto) to gain diagnostic 
information. 
page 101 


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1741&amp;context=reading_horizons

What\u27s The Value Of An IRI? Is It Being Used?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU