Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Examining the Validity of Two Measures for Formative Teaching: Reading Aloud and Maze

Jenkins, Joseph R., Jewell, Mark·1993·Exceptional Children

Abstract

This study examined the relations among performance on standardized reading tests, two informal measures (reading aloud and maze), and teacher judgment. Subjects were 335 students from Grades 2–6. Correlations between oral reading fluency and two achievement tests varied according to students' grade level, with a declining trend in the coefficients as grade level increased. Correlations between oral reading and achievement tests at the upper grade levels were lower than those reported in previous studies. In contrast, coefficients between performance on maze tasks and achievement tests did not show a similar decline from lower to upper grade levels. Results are discussed in the context of assessment procedures used in formative instruction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/001440299305900505

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Commission on Reading, 1985, Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading
  2. 10.1177/001440298505200303 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Deno S. L., 1988, Reading Progress Monitoring Passages
  4. 10.1177/001440298204900105 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1177/001440299105800306 · DOI
  6. 10.3102/00028312021002449 · doi:10.3102/00028312021002449 · Paper page
  7. Fuchs L. S., 1990, Identifying an alternative reading measure for curriculum-based measurement
  8. 10.1080/00220671.1989.10885938 · DOI
  9. Fuchs L. S., 1990, Effects of instructional consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task
  10. 10.1177/074193258800900206 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1037/h0035643 · DOI
  12. Guthrie J. T., 1974, The Reading Teacher, 28, 161
  13. 10.1016/0742-051X(87)90010-2 · DOI
  14. 10.3102/00346543059003297 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01056.x · DOI
  16. Kaplan A., 1964, The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science
  17. 10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.75 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.75 · Paper page
  18. MacGinitie W. H., 1978, Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests
  19. Marston D., 1982, Implementation of direct and repeated measurement in the school setting
  20. Pearson P. D., 1978, Teaching reading comprehension
  21. Prescott G. A., 1984, Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT-6)
  22. 10.2466/pr0.1982.50.2.673 · doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.50.2.673
  23. Salvia J. A., 1978, Assessment in special and remedial education
  24. Shinn M. R., 1989, Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children
  25. 10.1086/458513 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Stahl S. A., 1989, Academic achievement and aptitude testing: Practical applications and test reviews, 158
  27. 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.668 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/074193258800900106 · doi:10.1177/074193258800900106

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M.
Venue
Exceptional Children
Published
1993-03
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
421-432
ISSN
  • 0014-4029 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-5560
OpenAlex
W1860511877
Cited by
212
References
0
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Examining the Validity of Two Measures for Formative Teaching: Reading Aloud and Maze. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/001440299305900505
The paper
Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the Validity of Two Measures for Formative Teaching: Reading Aloud and Maze. Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299305900505

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.