Abstract
Forty-eight students, randomly selected from among fifth-grade children who were participating in a re-test estimation study, were administered Forms G and H of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests' Word Identification subtest in a counterbalanced format. Analyses of the data indicate that the two forms of the subtest are not parallel. While a correlation between the scores on the two forms of the subtest was high (r = .86), classification reliability was poor; statistically significant levels were reached for both grade classification and quartile classification inconsistencies between the forms. Implications of these findings for the subtest's use in Woodcock profiles are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
