Premium
How reliable are informal reading inventories?
Author(s) -
Spector Janet E.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/pits.20104
Subject(s) - psychology , reliability (semiconductor) , reading (process) , identification (biology) , quality (philosophy) , selection (genetic algorithm) , applied psychology , computer science , artificial intelligence , philosophy , power (physics) , physics , botany , epistemology , quantum mechanics , political science , law , biology
Informal Reading Inventories (IRI) are often recommended as instructionally relevant measures of reading. However, they have also been criticized for inattention to technical quality. Examination of reliability evidence in nine recently revised IRIs revealed that fewer than half report reliability. Several appear to have sufficient reliability for lower stakes decisions such as selection of classroom reading materials, but not for higher stakes purposes such as identification of reading difficulties. This article provides recommendations for improving IRI reliability and addresses the need for expanded guidelines for evaluating reliability, particularly for measures of score agreement. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 42: 593–603, 2005.