Abstract
This study compared the reliability and validity of student scores from paper-pencil and e-based assessments using the "maze" and "silent reading fluency" (SRF) tasks. Forty students who were deaf and hard of hearing and reading between the second and fifth grade reading levels and their teachers (n = 21) participated. For maze, alternate form reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores and correct scores adjusted for guessing ranged from r = .61 to .84 (ps<.01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = .33 to .67 (most ps < .01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = .50 to .75 (ps<.01); validity ranged from r = .25 to .72. Differences between student performance on paper-pencil and e-based conditions were generally non-significant for maze; significant differences between conditions for SRF favored the paper-pencil condition. Findings suggest that maze holds promise, with inconclusive results for SRF.
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.
