How reliable are informal reading inventories?
Spector JE · 2005
grade Dreviewindependentnot-applicable
Sample
review of 9 recently revised commercially published informal reading inventories
Population
US elementary reading assessment
Design
A review of published technical documentation rather than a study of children, so grade D. What it audits is not an effect but whether the evidence exists at all - which for a placement instrument is the prior question.
Key findings
Fewer than half of the nine commercially published informal reading inventories reported ANY reliability evidence. Of those that did, several were adequate only for low-stakes uses such as choosing classroom materials, not for identification or classification decisions. The instrument most widely used to decide what level a child should be reading at largely does not report whether it gives the same answer twice.
Genetic confound
Not applicable - an audit of instrument documentation.
Replication notes
Not an empirical finding of its own; the substantive claim is corroborated by the generalisability studies of running records (Fawson et al. 2006), which measured the instability directly.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability evidence reported by commercial informal reading inventories | count | fewer than half of 9 reported any reliability evidence | standardized | not applicable | none | not-applicable | domain-skill |
| Adequacy of reported reliability for decision use | assessment | adequate only for low-stakes uses such as material selection, not identification decisions | standardized | not applicable | none | not-applicable | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Placement and mastery diagnosis — deciding what to teach next from evidence of current skillmoderate supportconf: mediumgc: medium