Introduction
Basically, assessment is usually confused with and equated to evaluation. However, these binary concepts are apparently very different. As it emanates, assessment could be used in determining what a particular student can do or knows. In fact, assessment data tend to influence students grades, advancements and placements along with the instructional curriculum and strategies.
As an imperative education element therefore, assessment could be used when informing instruction (Wren, 2004). The initial student reading capability assessment requires that a noble reading instruction be implemented.
At the moment, various classroom students seem to possess assorted literacy skills and backgrounds. Such features make it indispensable for educators or instructors to have well designed assessment instruments and instruction tools to aid in the provision of suitable curriculum to students.
Based on these, the paper purposely aims at comparing and contrasting the renowned binary assessment instruments namely Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (WRMT-T) and Test of Early Reading Ability, Third Edition (TERA-3) which measure the students reading skills. The strengths and weaknesses as well as the reliability and validity of data collection methods of these assessment instruments will be measured.
Thesis Statement
Despite the fact that both TERA-3 and WRMT-R are perceived to be of great significance in assessments, the strengths and limitations can suggest that TERA-3 is superior as compared to WRMT-R.
Comparing and contrasting TERA-3 and WRMT-R
According to Reid, Hresko and Hammill (2001), TERA is essential for those who want to succeed in the contemporary society. The authors believe that to improve the directives for low attaining children, experimental tests had to be conducted to help in identifying kids who required primary reading interventions.
This measure could assist them economically, socially and in realizing their goals in other educational areas. Within the learning society, TERA-3 is well known as a success test. It was designed to measure what young children learnt and their reading abilities. Instead of assessing kids reading readiness, TERA-3 tends to assess their timely emerging mastery reading skills.
As a discretely governed attainment assessment tool, TERA-3 endeavors to perfectly measure each child’s skills in early literacy stages ranging from three and half years to eight and half years. The administration of three TERA-3 subsets could roughly take half an hour to forty five minutes. The subsets include meaning, alphabet and conventions.
All subsets have provisional standard scores. To compute the reading quotient, the scores of the three subtests must be used. For all the three subsets, the accruing outcomes should be reported as confidence scores, percentiles, grade equivalents, age, standards scores and raw scores.
The score of the compounded reading quotient has a standard deviation equivalent to fifteen and a mean of one hundred. Every subset has a standard deviation and a mean equivalent to three and ten respectively.
Non-clinical staff is the requisite qualification for administering TERA-3 test. It is nevertheless required that each test administrator must have formalized assessment training with a better comprehension of test administration, interpretation, statistics testing and scoring (Caldwell, 2002).
The WRMT-R is an exclusively administered reading assessment test specifically intended to ascertain children strengths and weaknesses as regards to reading abilities. The information acquired might be used in the determination of planned target remediation and suitable reading strategies necessary for the improvement of each child’s reading skills.
WRMT-R is of two forms namely H and G, both of which incorporate word comprehension such as analogies, antonyms and synonyms, word attack, passage comprehension and word identification. Form G similarly incorporates letter identification and visual-auditory learning.
In most cases, WRMT-R is deemed appropriate in the assessment of individuals aged five years through to seventy five years old. Approximately forty five minutes is needed to administer this achievement instrument (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977). Methods and formats of administration include individual administration; grade based standard scores, grade or age equivalents, percentiles and yields age.
The differences that exist between these binary assessment instruments are as shown in the table below.
Normative Group
TERA-3 is in the third version and has new color versions and normative data. The TERA-3 is averagely referenced and has eight hundred and seventy five subjects in its normative sample group. This is perceived to be very small yet in line with Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
In fact, it corresponds well to the universal school age populace including rural, urban, masculinity, incapacity, ethnicity and race while notably representing every region across the U.S (Reid, Hresko and Hammill, 2001).
Conversely, the norming of WRMT-R occurred on a sample of six thousand and eighty nine subjects. This was pronounced as sixty geologically varied populations. The selection of populations took place based on the socioeconomic physiognomies which matched the 1980’s United States census.
From the number, one thousand and twenty three subjects were regarded as either college or university students; four thousand two hundred and one subjects appeared to be in grade K-twelve and the remaining eight hundred and sixty five subjects became grouped as age twenty to over eighty (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977). The last normative group did not get college enrollment.
Reliability and validity
TERA-3 seems to possess a significantly higher level of validity and reliability. To assess reliability, various measures were used to provide evidence. In the first case, coefficient alpha was applied for the reading quotient and across each subset interval. The alpha reliability constituent had a sampling coefficient which ranged from 0.83 to 0.95 while interval sampling coefficient ranged from 0.93 to 0.96.
The inter-scorer deviation coefficient was 0.99. Construct identification, content description and the criterion prediction validity all fell within the range of 0.81. However, it is worth noting that with respect to all kinds of assessments, validity and reliability are reliant on proper use and administration of TERA-3. All subsets had accepted alpha levels which led to the conclusion that there was no biasness in any subsection.
Stratified random sampling was used to select subjects. The design regulated for particular subject variables and communities. Half split coefficients formula was used to compute the reliability whereby all tests coefficients fluctuated from a minimum of 0.34 to a maximum of 0.98.
The minimum denoted letter grade identification test while the maximum denoted word grade one identification test. Content validity acted as source of WRMT-R validity and depicted a match amid curriculum and test items. Limited validity was also provided as an evidence for WRMT-R validity (Farr & Carey, 1986).
Strengths and limitations of each assessment instrument
After the administration of the achievement test dubbed as TERA-3, it is easier to attest that it has various strengths. This assessment instrument is rapidly administered, highly engages the subjects and much easier to use. Further, it has affordable price points for nearly all district schools while the tests are apparently not devastating with respect to materials and information.
These are highly mobile given that they could be pleasantly packed in easy to transport boxes. The manual for examiners offers comprehensible results interpretation, administration and scoring directions besides being helpful and concise (Caldwell, 2002). This makes it to hold an elevated reliability and validity levels.
Despite the fact that TERA-3 offers a rapid way of providing children reading abilities snapshot outlooks, it might not be comprehensively applied as an independent assessment tool. The examiners are obligated to surpass the interpretation of TERA-3 results so as to understand the poor performance backgrounds.
Calfee (1987) asserts that WRMT-R has strengths related to the newly added subsets which make the comprehension tests much enhanced. There are provisional voluntary Supplemental Letter Checklists, descriptive word attack tests format and current theories that only applies standard letter forms.
Further strengths of this assessment instrument include examiner trainer provisions, expanded adult students norms, ASSIST minicomputer scoring package and an informatively useful manual for examiners.
WRMT-R is associated with weaknesses such as fragmented reading assessments. The feature makes validity to equitably suffer despite allowing for a supplementary reliable testing. In an attempt to serve both old age and kindergarten subjects, it is doubted whether proper service will be offered.
Besides, the scoring and administration glitches make tests extremely lengthy and boring to the subjects. Learning examiners frequently experience scoring errors when they use several tables. Finally, there are additional costs associated with ASSIST.
Recommended Assessment instrument
Drawn from the features, weaknesses and strengths of these two assessment instruments, TERA-3 is the reading instrument I would highly endorse. The recommendation for this instrument follows the fact that it offers decipherable literature reading assessment which files the significance of emerging mastery skills in meaning, alphabet and convention.
It similarly provides the significance of young kids reading assessments. Unlike WRMT-R, TERA-3 resulting measures proffer a wide-ranging children reading capability assessment for educator and teachers alike. WRMT-R appears not to offer the actual reading capability assessment since the novel measures for summary score computation are difficult to deduce yet offer some relationships.
References
Caldwell, N. (2002). Reading assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Calfee, R. C. (1987). The school as a context for assessment of literacy. The Reading Teacher, 40 (8), 738-743.
Farr, R. & Carey, R. F. (1986). Reading: What can be measured? Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P. & Donald, D. (2001). Test of early reading ability, third edition. Retrieved from Webster University Library Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print.
Woodcock, R. W. & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
Wren, S. (2004). Descriptions of early reading assessments. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Web.