Accuracy in Identifying Students' Miscues during Oral Reading: A Taxonomy of Scorers' Mismarkings

Autor/inn/en	Reed, Deborah K.; Cummings, Kelli D.; Schaper, Andrew; Lynn, Devon; Biancarosa, Gina
Titel	Accuracy in Identifying Students' Miscues during Oral Reading: A Taxonomy of Scorers' Mismarkings
Quelle	In: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32 (2019) 4, S.1009-1035 (27 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0922-4777
DOI	10.1007/s11145-018-9899-5
Schlagwörter	Accuracy; Miscue Analysis; Grade 5; Grade 6; Audio Equipment; Graduate Students; Reading Tests; Evaluators; Scoring; Error Patterns; Oral Reading; Screening Tests; Decision Making; Scores; Reading Difficulties; Diagnostic Tests; Curriculum Based Assessment; Elementary School Students; Student Evaluation; Reading Skills + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? School year 05; 5. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 05; School year 06; 6. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 06; Audio-CD; Graduate Study; Student; Students; Aufbaustudium; Graduiertenstudium; Hauptstudium; Studentin; Lesetest; Bewertung; Fehlertyp; Oral work; Reading; Mündliche Übung; Leseprozess; Lesen; Screening-Verfahren; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Reading difficulty; Leseschwierigkeit; Diagnostic test; Diagnostischer Test; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Reading skill; Lesefertigkeit
Abstract	Informal reading inventories (IRI) and curriculum-based measures of reading (CBM-R) have continued importance in instructional planning, but raters have exhibited difficulty in accurately identifying students' miscues. To identify and tabulate scorers' mismarkings, this study employed examiners and raters who scored 15,051 words from 108 passage readings by students in Grades 5 and 6. Word-by-word scoring from these individuals was compared with a consensus score obtained from the first author and two graduate students after repeated replaying of the audio from the passage readings. Microanalysis conducted on all discrepancies identified a cumulative total of 929 mismarkings (range = 1-37 per passage) that we categorized in 37 unique types. Examiners scoring live made significantly more mismarkings than raters scoring audio recordings, t(214) = 4.35, p = 0.0001, with an effect size of d = 0.59. In 98% of the passages, scorers disagreed on the number of words read correctly--the score used for screening and progress monitoring decisions. Results suggest that IRIs and CBM-Rs may not be accurate as diagnostic tools for determining students' particular word-level difficulties. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01