/
Gray Oral Reading Test 5 Gray Oral Reading Test 5

Gray Oral Reading Test 5 - PowerPoint Presentation

marina-yarberry
marina-yarberry . @marina-yarberry
Follow
461 views
Uploaded On 2016-11-20

Gray Oral Reading Test 5 - PPT Presentation

th Edition Alexis Saperstein and Mary S tewart Anderson EDSP 5311 Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching of Exceptional Children Dr Reed Houston Baptist University Outline History Description of the Test ID: 491145

test reading scores gort reading test gort scores story accuracy score rate comprehension oral fluency errors student walker sarah

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Gray Oral Reading Test 5" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Gray Oral Reading Test 5th Edition

Alexis Saperstein and Mary

S

tewart Anderson

EDSP 5311: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching of Exceptional Children

Dr. Reed

Houston Baptist UniversitySlide2

Outline

History

Description of the Test

PurposeRelevant PopulationAdministration and ScoringRecording and InterpretingNormative InformationReliabilityValidityExperiences with TestTakeawaysSlide3

History

Developed by Dr. Willian S. Gray in 1960 (he died)

First published in 1963 after being completed by Dr. Helen Robinson

5th edition published in 2012 by Pearson/PsychcorpAuthors: J. Lee Wiederholt and Brian R. BryantSlide4

Description of the Test

Consists of examiners manual, student book (form A and form B) that is read aloud.

Form A examiner record booklet (25 come in a set)

Form B examiner record booklet (25 come in a set)Slide5

Purpose of the Test

Used to help identify students who are significantly behind in reading and determine the degree.

Determine oral reading strengths and weaknesses (between rate, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.

Monitor student progress in reading interventionConduct researchSlide6

Relevant Population

Any student age 6 to 23 and 11 monthsSlide7

Administration and Scoring

Testing time is about 15 – 45 minutes

Entry point is determined by grade level

Grades 1-3: story 1

Grades 4-5: story 3

Grade 6-9: story 4

Grades 10-11: story 5

12-postsecondary: story 6

Student reads the story while the examiner times passage and marks reading errors

Administrator asks the student comprehension questions

The time and accuracy of reading and correctly answered questions are recordedSlide8

Recording and Interpreting

Information is recorded in the booklet

in

identifying information, GORT-5 scores, performance summary, corresponding descriptive terms, GORT-5 miscues, summary of other reading behaviors, prosody, and record of performance. GORT-5 Scores:Rate Score – time (in seconds) in which the student reads the passage; corresponds with a score numberAccuracy Score – deviations from print (number of misread words); corresponds with a score numberFluency Score – Rate Score + Accuracy Score

Comprehension Score – number of correctly answered questions about the story (out of 5)

All are totaled which become the raw totals that other areas of the performance summary are based onSlide9

Recording and Interpreting cont’d

Performance Summary:

Raw totals from rate, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension are compared to charts detailing the age equivalent, grade equivalent, percentile rank, and scaled scores.

Scaled scores are totaled as a Sum of Scaled Scores. This is then compared to a chart that details Oral reading Percentile Rank and Oral Reading Index (ORI)Scaled and index scores correlate to descriptive terms: very poor, poor, below average, average, above average, superior, and very superiorGORT-5 Miscues:25 miscues (self-correction and substitution) are analyzed according to five categories: Meaning Similarity, Function Similarity, Graphic/Phonemic Similarity, Multiple Sources, and Self-Correction.

Each category is totaled and a percentage is determinedSlide10

Recording and Interpreting cont’d

Summary of Other Reading Behaviors

Substitutions, omissions, mispronunciations, additions, reversal, and hesitations are totaled

Other observations such as posture, word-by-word reading, and poor enunciation are checked off if exhibited.

Prosody

The student is rated from 1 – 4 (1 being little/no attempt, 4 being consistently appropriate) on expression, volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pacing Slide11

Normative Information

The GORT-5 was normed on a sample of 2,556 students in 33 states.

Collection of a normative sample that is representative of the nation as a whole with regard to geographic region, gender, race, Hispanic status, parents’ educational attainment, household income, and exceptionality status (as compared with those reported by the US Bureau of the Census for school-age and post-secondary populations)Slide12

Reliability

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM):

Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, Comprehension = 1

Oral Reading Index = ranges from 2 to 4, so averaged to 3Alternate FormsThe averaged correlation coefficients for Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, and Comprehension exceed .85.

Test-Retest

Sample of 248 Students ages 6 – 23 who varied widely in reading ability; 566% female, 44% male; 70% white, 22% African American, 4% Asian, 4% mixed or other; 27% Hispanic; 5% with disability/exceptionality; across Texas, New York, north Dakota, California, and Nebraska

The magnitude of the coefficients for the combined sample ranges from .82 to .9 and is large enough to strongly support the idea that the scores on both forms have acceptable test-retest reliability.

InterscorerFour studies were performed in which interscorer agreement:>.99“approach 1.0”“approached 1.0”>.86Slide13

Validity

involves the “systematic examination of the test content to determine whether it covers a representative sample of the behavior domain to be measured” (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 115).

Scaled scores and index scores were correlated with the scores from 5 reading assessments: Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Reading Observation Scale, Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension, and Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency

Correlation coefficients were described as “very large” for fluency, comprehension, rate, and Oral Reading Index and “large” for accuracy.The correlations between the GORT-5 and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) achievement test are reported as “large or very large”, providing evidence of a strong relationship between the GORT-5 and academic achievement.

The GORT-5 exhibited a moderate correlation with the WISC-IV, with the ORI correlated to a large degree.

Intercorrelation

of the GORT-5’s scores had coefficients of .75 (very large) or higher.

The information provided suggests that the GORT-5 is a valid measure of reading ability. Slide14

Testing Sarah by Alexis

 

Percentile

Rank

Scaled Score

Descriptive Term

Rate

63

11

Average

Accuracy

37

9

Average

Fluency

50

10

Average

Comprehension

50

10

Average

Oral Reading Index

50

100

Average

Sarah made very few errors in the easiest stories, through Story 7 (approximately a 7th grade reading level).

Her errors became far more frequent beginning with Story 9, with her Accuracy score plummeting from a 3 (of a possible 5) on Story 8 to a 1 on Story 9.

The majority of Sarah’s errors were in:

- Syllabication

  (aristocrats/

aristoocrats

, legislation/

legistion

, and artisan/art-

i

-sane),

- Spelling

rules for

addingprefixes

/suffixes to words (inhospitable/hospitable, elude, eluded)

- Sound-symbol

(reading domain/

domin

, cautioned/continued, several/serial). Slide15

Recommendations for Sarah

Resources:

Cloze passages to help monitor for meaning when reading

http://mrnussbaum.com/clozemain/

C

ommon rules for syllabication

http://www.sjusd.org/simonds/docs/16_syllable_rules.cwk_(WP)_.pdf

C

ommon root words, prefixes, and suffixes

http://teacher.scholastic.com/reading/bestpractices/vocabulary/pdf/prefixes_suffixes.pdf

Sarah currently attends school in a fourth grade general education classroom. It is recommended that Sarah stay in her current placement as her scores do not indicate a need

for additional intervention at this time.Slide16

Testing Walker by Mary Stewart

 

Percentile

Rank

Scaled Score

Descriptive Term

Rate

>99

19

Very

Superior

Accuracy

75

12

Average

Fluency

98

16

Superior

Comprehension

98

16

Superior

Oral Reading Index

98

131

Very

Superior

Walker read quickly and with

confidence, but paid little attention to punctuation.

Walker made 0 – 2 errors in the easiest

stories

, through Story 6.

He made 5 or less errors in stories 7 and 8. His errors greatly increased in stories 9 and up.

100% of Walker’s misread word errors were visually similar to the printed text. 44% of Walker’s miscues demonstrated function similarity to words from the stories (ex: impending/imminent, possible/possibly, this/the, etc

.)

Walker’s reading rate remained consistent throughout testing and never dropped lower than a score of 2.Slide17

Recommendations for Walker

Resources

Explicit

instruction on where accent goes

http://library.neuhaus.org/lessonets/developing-awareness-accent

Reading fluency instruction with a focus on slowing rate – Guided Oral Reading

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-guided-oral-reading

Practice following punctuation – correct pausing, etc.

http://www.swsc.org/cms/lib04/MN01000693/Centricity/Domain/91/EI_Phrasing_and_Commas.pdf

Reading

self-correction

instruction

https://readingrecovery.org/images/pdfs/Conferences/NC12/Handouts/Duncan_Sue_Featured_You_Could_Be%20_Right.pdf

Walker currently attends school in a third grade general education classroom. It is recommended that Walker stay in his current placement as his scores do not indicate a need for additional intervention at this time.Slide18

Takeaways

The GORT-5 was easy and quick to use.

The GORT-5 had very simple and basic instructions that were easy to follow and uncomplicated.

We were a little bit confused by the role of the comprehension questions. (How the comprehension affects the score, because it wasn’t factored into ceilings and basals)The test had the feel of a DRA test, but the marking instructions were different. This confused us.

The percentile ranks seemed disproportionate in some ways.

For example, WM scored in the 75

th

percentile in reading accuracy (scoring better than or equal to 75% of his peers in the norm group), but was described as Average.Sarah scored in the 37th percentile rank in accuracy which was also described as average.The GORT-5 was an easy tool, but we prefer others (ex: DIBELS or DRA). Slide19

References

J.L.

Wiederholt

& B. R. Bryant. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests – Fifth Edition (GORT-5). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.