The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Validity of Informal Reading Comprehension Measures
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion, construct, and concurrent validity of four informal reading comprehension measures: question answering tests, recall measures, oral passage reading tests, and cloze techniques. Mildly and moderately handicapped middle and junior high school boys (N = 70) were administered the informal measures in one sitting, with four passages equally represented across the four measures and with the administration order of measures counterbalanced. Criterion tests, the Reading Comprehension and Word Study Skills subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test, also were administered in a separate sitting. Results indicated that the correct oral reading rate score demonstrated the strongest criterion validity, with adequate construct and concurrent validity. A second acceptable index was the written recall measure. Implications for designing reading comprehension monitoring procedures are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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: 33
- Alderson, J.C., 1978, The eighth mental measurements yearbook, 1171
- Armbruster, B.B., 1977, Analyzing content coverage and emphasis: A study of three curricula and two tests
- 10.2307/1128873 · doi:10.2307/1128873 · Paper page
- 10.1177/001440298505200303 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/001440298204900105 · DOI · Paper page
- Elley, W.B., 1976, New directions for teaching: Selected proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Reading, 55
- Fry, E., 1968, Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516, 575
- Fuchs, L.S., 1981, The concurrent validity of progress measures of basal reading material.
- Fuchs, L.S., 1982, Considerations for designing a continuous evaluation system: An integrative review, 29
- 10.1177/073724778300800301 · DOI
- 10.3102/00028312021002449 · doi:10.3102/00028312021002449 · Paper page
- 10.1177/001440298605300301 · DOI · Paper page
- Fuchs, L.S., 1987, Interactive effects of reading mode, production format, and structural importance of text among reading disabled pupils.
- Gardner, E.F., 1982, Stanford achievement test
- Gardner, E.F., 1982, Technical review kit for the Stanford Achievement Test series
- 10.1037/h0070551 · doi:10.1037/h0070551
- Hansen, C.L.M., 1979, Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation.
- 10.2307/1510403 · DOI
- 10.1177/001440297804400606 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80003-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Johnston, P.B., 1982, Implications of basic research for the assessment of reading comprehension
- Mirkin, P.K., 1982, Considerations in designing a continuous evaluation system: An integrative review
- 10.1080/00220671.1978.10885083 · doi:10.1080/00220671.1978.10885083
- 10.2307/1510674 · DOI
- Readence, J.E., 1983, Journal of Reading, 26, 306
- 10.1080/10862967209547066 · doi:10.1080/10862967209547066
- Shapiro, E.S. & Derr, T.F. (in press). An examination of overlap between reading curricula and standardized achievement tests. The Journal of Special Education.
- Suhorsky, J. (1975). An investigation of the relationship between undeleted text preceding a cloze test and cloze test results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
- 10.3102/00028312019002220 · doi:10.3102/00028312019002220
- 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915770 · doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915770
- 10.1037/11773-000 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3102/0013189X012008010 · DOI
- Ysseldyke, J.E. (1979). Psychoeducational decision making. In J.E. Ysseldyke & P.K. Mirkin (eds.), Proceedings of the Minnesota Roundtable Conference on Assessment of Learning Disabled Children (Monograph No. 8). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Cited by
Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement
Deno, S. L. (2003) · The Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801 · Cited by 653
Sources of Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension and Reading Fluency.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719 · Cited by 580
Self-citationUsing Curriculum‐Based Measurement to Improve Student Achievement: Review of Research
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.20113 · Cited by 506
Self-citationFormative Evaluation of Academic Progress: How Much Growth Can We Expect?
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993) · School Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/02796015.1993.12085636 · Cited by 442
Self-citationLiterature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading
Miura Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007) · The Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401 · Cited by 428
Metadata
- Authors
- Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L.
- Venue
- Remedial and Special Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 20-28
- ISSN
- 0741-9325 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4756
- OpenAlex
- W2134904653
- Cited by
- 475
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.76
- 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: The Validity of Informal Reading Comprehension Measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/074193258800900206
- The paper
- Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The Validity of Informal Reading Comprehension Measures. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258800900206
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.
