Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
INFORMAL READING INVENTORIES (IRIs) are endorsed frequently by textbook authors and teacher trainers. However, the reliability and validity of standard and salient IRI procedures rarely have been investigated. Employing 91 elementary-age students, this study examined the technical adequacy of (a) choosing a criterion of 95% accuracy for word recognition to determine an instructional level, (b) arbitrarily selecting a passage to represent the difficulty level of a basal reader, and (c) employing one-level floors and ceilings to demarcate levels beyond which behavior is not sampled. Correlational and congruency analyses supported the external validity of the 95% standard but questioned the reliability and validity of passage sampling procedures and one-level floors and ceilings. Sampling over occasions and test forms is discussed as a more valid IRI procedure.
Fuchs et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: