Cited by 88Reading and Literacy DevelopmentPsychometric Methodologies and TestingBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement.

Hintze, John M., Owen, Steven V., Shapiro, Edward S., Daly, Edward J.·2000·School Psychology Quarterly

Abstract

52-68

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0088778

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hintze, J. M., Owen, S. V., Shapiro, E. S., & Daly, E. J.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
School Psychology Quarterly
Published
2000
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
52-68
ISSN
  • 1045-3830 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1560
OpenAlex
W1975636518
Cited by
88
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • School Psychology Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
oral reading fluency, generalizability theory, curriculum-based measurement, reading assessment, test-retest reliability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review